Southwest Virginia Blogs

In a widely reported story, a Danish study indicates a no more than normal incidence of cancer among cell phone users. Unlike many other studies, this one involved hundreds of thousands of people--a number large enough to make it statistically reliable. Researchers caution that the we still don't have enough long term data to know for sure that cellphones are completely safe. There is widespread agreement that cellphone and cordless phone frequencies in the gigahertz range do cause measurable changes in cell activity. What we don't know is whether or not this causes health problems. In the meantime, I'll continue to use a wired headset as much as possible (Bluetooth wireless headsets use microwave frequencies, so they are not an improvement).

In a widely reported story, a Danish study indicates a no more than normal incidence of cancer among cell phone users. Unlike many other studies, this one involved hundreds of thousands of people--a number large enough to make it statistically reliable. Researchers caution that the we still don't have enough long term data to know for sure that cellphones are completely safe. There is widespread agreement that cellphone and cordless phone frequencies in the gigahertz range do cause measurable changes in cell activity. What we don't know is whether or not this causes health problems. In the meantime, I'll continue to use a wired headset as much as possible (Bluetooth wireless headsets use microwave frequencies, so they are not an improvement).

This article from mid-summer just came to my attention. It discusses some of the current municipal WiFi projects and the problems they are having. WiFi vendors tout the low cost of wireless and the "easy" installation--stick up a few towers and you are done. What they tend to leave out of the sales pitch is that current WiFi systems often have trouble penetrating trees with leaves on them, don't penetrate walls well, and the signal does not go around corners. Here is a portion of the article:

A successful economic model for running municipal Wi-Fi networks has yet to emerge," notes from the city's director of IT, Chris Mead, acknowledge.
The city also noted that while subscription models for Wi-Fi have been a flop, advertising-based revenue "cannot be taken for granted", either.
"It may be that municipal Wi-Fi is a passing fad that will be left behind by economic reality and new technology," advised Mead.

Vendors also often provide an unfair cost analysis. The claim that wireless is cheaper than fiber is bogus because wireless vendors compare the one time installation cost of wireless systems with the 30 year amortized cost of fiber systems--an apples and oranges comparison. If you look at the 30 year cost of providing wireless and compare that to the 30 year cost of fiber, guess which one is less expensive? It is fiber!

Our communities need good, reliable wireless broadband coverage for mobile devices. We want our phones and PDAs to work wherever we are in town. But particularly from an economic development perspective, wireless is an incomplete solution. If you are having trouble sorting out vendor claims, call us--Design Nine can provide a complete set of broadband planning and implementation services, and we will help you sort out conflicting and confusing vendor claims and put together a broadband strategy for your community or region.

This article from mid-summer just came to my attention. It discusses some of the current municipal WiFi projects and the problems they are having. WiFi vendors tout the low cost of wireless and the "easy" installation--stick up a few towers and you are done. What they tend to leave out of the sales pitch is that current WiFi systems often have trouble penetrating trees with leaves on them, don't penetrate walls well, and the signal does not go around corners. Here is a portion of the article:

A successful economic model for running municipal Wi-Fi networks has yet to emerge," notes from the city's director of IT, Chris Mead, acknowledge.
The city also noted that while subscription models for Wi-Fi have been a flop, advertising-based revenue "cannot be taken for granted", either.
"It may be that municipal Wi-Fi is a passing fad that will be left behind by economic reality and new technology," advised Mead.

Vendors also often provide an unfair cost analysis. The claim that wireless is cheaper than fiber is bogus because wireless vendors compare the one time installation cost of wireless systems with the 30 year amortized cost of fiber systems--an apples and oranges comparison. If you look at the 30 year cost of providing wireless and compare that to the 30 year cost of fiber, guess which one is less expensive? It is fiber!

Our communities need good, reliable wireless broadband coverage for mobile devices. We want our phones and PDAs to work wherever we are in town. But particularly from an economic development perspective, wireless is an incomplete solution. If you are having trouble sorting out vendor claims, call us--Design Nine can provide a complete set of broadband planning and implementation services, and we will help you sort out conflicting and confusing vendor claims and put together a broadband strategy for your community or region.

This article from mid-summer just came to my attention. It discusses some of the current municipal WiFi projects and the problems they are having. WiFi vendors tout the low cost of wireless and the "easy" installation--stick up a few towers and you are done. What they tend to leave out of the sales pitch is that current WiFi systems often have trouble penetrating trees with leaves on them, don't penetrate walls well, and the signal does not go around corners. Here is a portion of the article:

A successful economic model for running municipal Wi-Fi networks has yet to emerge," notes from the city's director of IT, Chris Mead, acknowledge.
The city also noted that while subscription models for Wi-Fi have been a flop, advertising-based revenue "cannot be taken for granted", either.
"It may be that municipal Wi-Fi is a passing fad that will be left behind by economic reality and new technology," advised Mead.

Vendors also often provide an unfair cost analysis. The claim that wireless is cheaper than fiber is bogus because wireless vendors compare the one time installation cost of wireless systems with the 30 year amortized cost of fiber systems--an apples and oranges comparison. If you look at the 30 year cost of providing wireless and compare that to the 30 year cost of fiber, guess which one is less expensive? It is fiber!

Our communities need good, reliable wireless broadband coverage for mobile devices. We want our phones and PDAs to work wherever we are in town. But particularly from an economic development perspective, wireless is an incomplete solution. If you are having trouble sorting out vendor claims, call us--Design Nine can provide a complete set of broadband planning and implementation services, and we will help you sort out conflicting and confusing vendor claims and put together a broadband strategy for your community or region.

This article from mid-summer just came to my attention. It discusses some of the current municipal WiFi projects and the problems they are having. WiFi vendors tout the low cost of wireless and the "easy" installation--stick up a few towers and you are done. What they tend to leave out of the sales pitch is that current WiFi systems often have trouble penetrating trees with leaves on them, don't penetrate walls well, and the signal does not go around corners. Here is a portion of the article:

A successful economic model for running municipal Wi-Fi networks has yet to emerge," notes from the city's director of IT, Chris Mead, acknowledge.
The city also noted that while subscription models for Wi-Fi have been a flop, advertising-based revenue "cannot be taken for granted", either.
"It may be that municipal Wi-Fi is a passing fad that will be left behind by economic reality and new technology," advised Mead.

Vendors also often provide an unfair cost analysis. The claim that wireless is cheaper than fiber is bogus because wireless vendors compare the one time installation cost of wireless systems with the 30 year amortized cost of fiber systems--an apples and oranges comparison. If you look at the 30 year cost of providing wireless and compare that to the 30 year cost of fiber, guess which one is less expensive? It is fiber!

Our communities need good, reliable wireless broadband coverage for mobile devices. We want our phones and PDAs to work wherever we are in town. But particularly from an economic development perspective, wireless is an incomplete solution. If you are having trouble sorting out vendor claims, call us--Design Nine can provide a complete set of broadband planning and implementation services, and we will help you sort out conflicting and confusing vendor claims and put together a broadband strategy for your community or region.

The Boston airport administration has tried for two years to force out every WiFi provider in the airport except the one with whom they signed a contract. This meant that travelers did not have a choice of providers, and that free WiFi in airline frequent traveler lounges had to be removed by the airlines. Logan Airport officials claimed the WiFi providers were causing radio interference with airport operations, thereby endangering safety. Right. Unlike the thousands of cellphones crowding the very same airwaves.

The FCC finally got into the act and told the airport officials to knock it off. Good for the FCC. In this case, they came down squarely on the side of citizens and the free market, and that's always the right thing to do.

The Boston airport administration has tried for two years to force out every WiFi provider in the airport except the one with whom they signed a contract. This meant that travelers did not have a choice of providers, and that free WiFi in airline frequent traveler lounges had to be removed by the airlines. Logan Airport officials claimed the WiFi providers were causing radio interference with airport operations, thereby endangering safety. Right. Unlike the thousands of cellphones crowding the very same airwaves.

The FCC finally got into the act and told the airport officials to knock it off. Good for the FCC. In this case, they came down squarely on the side of citizens and the free market, and that's always the right thing to do.

The Boston airport administration has tried for two years to force out every WiFi provider in the airport except the one with whom they signed a contract. This meant that travelers did not have a choice of providers, and that free WiFi in airline frequent traveler lounges had to be removed by the airlines. Logan Airport officials claimed the WiFi providers were causing radio interference with airport operations, thereby endangering safety. Right. Unlike the thousands of cellphones crowding the very same airwaves.

The FCC finally got into the act and told the airport officials to knock it off. Good for the FCC. In this case, they came down squarely on the side of citizens and the free market, and that's always the right thing to do.

The Boston airport administration has tried for two years to force out every WiFi provider in the airport except the one with whom they signed a contract. This meant that travelers did not have a choice of providers, and that free WiFi in airline frequent traveler lounges had to be removed by the airlines. Logan Airport officials claimed the WiFi providers were causing radio interference with airport operations, thereby endangering safety. Right. Unlike the thousands of cellphones crowding the very same airwaves.

The FCC finally got into the act and told the airport officials to knock it off. Good for the FCC. In this case, they came down squarely on the side of citizens and the free market, and that's always the right thing to do.

Network Computing has a short article with a headline that touts, "City governments are offering metro wireless services with speeds and latency that can't be beat." Sounds interesting, right? But if you read all the way to the end, where the article discusses the fabled WiMax, which will supposedly solve all the world's broadband problems, you find out that WiMax's multimegabit speeds drop to "1 to 2 megabits only at the outer edges."

So WiMax looks a lot like DSL--great if you live near an access point, but the farther away you are, the less you get from it, until even DSL or a cable modem connection is going to provide better and more consistent throughput. You have to read the fine print when looking at vendor promises.

I strongly encourage communities to invest in wireless, but only as part of an integrated strategy that includes both fiber and wireless, with wireless designed primarily for mobile uses. Over the long term, wireless can be more expensive than fiber when you look at the total life cycle costs, and if you are trying to design a system that pays for itself over time, it is difficult to do that with wireless by itself. An integrated fiber/wireless design, on the other hand, can actually return money to the community for other community and economic development uses. Design Nine specializes in helping communities and regions design and build such systems. Give us a call or drop us a note if you would like more information.

Network Computing has a short article with a headline that touts, "City governments are offering metro wireless services with speeds and latency that can't be beat." Sounds interesting, right? But if you read all the way to the end, where the article discusses the fabled WiMax, which will supposedly solve all the world's broadband problems, you find out that WiMax's multimegabit speeds drop to "1 to 2 megabits only at the outer edges."

So WiMax looks a lot like DSL--great if you live near an access point, but the farther away you are, the less you get from it, until even DSL or a cable modem connection is going to provide better and more consistent throughput. You have to read the fine print when looking at vendor promises.

I strongly encourage communities to invest in wireless, but only as part of an integrated strategy that includes both fiber and wireless, with wireless designed primarily for mobile uses. Over the long term, wireless can be more expensive than fiber when you look at the total life cycle costs, and if you are trying to design a system that pays for itself over time, it is difficult to do that with wireless by itself. An integrated fiber/wireless design, on the other hand, can actually return money to the community for other community and economic development uses. Design Nine specializes in helping communities and regions design and build such systems. Give us a call or drop us a note if you would like more information.

Network Computing has a short article with a headline that touts, "City governments are offering metro wireless services with speeds and latency that can't be beat." Sounds interesting, right? But if you read all the way to the end, where the article discusses the fabled WiMax, which will supposedly solve all the world's broadband problems, you find out that WiMax's multimegabit speeds drop to "1 to 2 megabits only at the outer edges."

So WiMax looks a lot like DSL--great if you live near an access point, but the farther away you are, the less you get from it, until even DSL or a cable modem connection is going to provide better and more consistent throughput. You have to read the fine print when looking at vendor promises.

I strongly encourage communities to invest in wireless, but only as part of an integrated strategy that includes both fiber and wireless, with wireless designed primarily for mobile uses. Over the long term, wireless can be more expensive than fiber when you look at the total life cycle costs, and if you are trying to design a system that pays for itself over time, it is difficult to do that with wireless by itself. An integrated fiber/wireless design, on the other hand, can actually return money to the community for other community and economic development uses. Design Nine specializes in helping communities and regions design and build such systems. Give us a call or drop us a note if you would like more information.

Swedish-Finnish telecom company TeliaSonera has started selling hybrid phones that will automatically make phone calls via the Internet when in range of a WiFi hotspot, and use the normal cellphone network when not in a hotspot. Some other dual mode phones have been available, but this is the first phone (manufactured by Samsung) that will switch automatically between the two. The firm is targeting in home use first, which is clever, because we make a lot of calls from home. If you have a wireless router in your house, the phone will automatically make VoIP calls, saving money.

Devices like this illustrate the need to design communitywide broadband networks that offer BOTH fiber and wireless connectivity. We are going to want and need both, and communities should plan and design for both.

Swedish-Finnish telecom company TeliaSonera has started selling hybrid phones that will automatically make phone calls via the Internet when in range of a WiFi hotspot, and use the normal cellphone network when not in a hotspot. Some other dual mode phones have been available, but this is the first phone (manufactured by Samsung) that will switch automatically between the two. The firm is targeting in home use first, which is clever, because we make a lot of calls from home. If you have a wireless router in your house, the phone will automatically make VoIP calls, saving money.

Devices like this illustrate the need to design communitywide broadband networks that offer BOTH fiber and wireless connectivity. We are going to want and need both, and communities should plan and design for both.

This article discusses Intel's belief that wireless networks in the home are inadequate for high definition television. The highly touted 802.11g, with a theoretical maximum bandwidth will only deliver about 22 megabits under the best of conditions in an in-home network, and performance could be much worse. In other words, it will barely handle a single channel of HD TV--as long as you or any one in the family is not doing anything else on the network.

Community wireless projects that rely entirely on WiFi are going to be similarly disappointed, as that bandwidth now has to be shared among several households. WiFi and its variants don't work well going through walls, and the wireless systems that experience poor reception because of interference operate much more slowly.

What does Intel recommend? The firm suggests wiring your house with Ethernet cable designed to support the very efficient Gigabit Ethernet standard (Cat 5e or Cat 6 cable, which is very inexpensive).

This article discusses Intel's belief that wireless networks in the home are inadequate for high definition television. The highly touted 802.11g, with a theoretical maximum bandwidth will only deliver about 22 megabits under the best of conditions in an in-home network, and performance could be much worse. In other words, it will barely handle a single channel of HD TV--as long as you or any one in the family is not doing anything else on the network.

Community wireless projects that rely entirely on WiFi are going to be similarly disappointed, as that bandwidth now has to be shared among several households. WiFi and its variants don't work well going through walls, and the wireless systems that experience poor reception because of interference operate much more slowly.

What does Intel recommend? The firm suggests wiring your house with Ethernet cable designed to support the very efficient Gigabit Ethernet standard (Cat 5e or Cat 6 cable, which is very inexpensive).

I have been traveling a lot lately, so I have had the opportunity to try out a lot of WiFi hotspots. The good news is that most hotels now have some kind of WiFi available. Business travelers can stay almost anywhere and count on having some kind of Internet access. I have not had to use my Earthlink dial up account in many months. Many "budget" hotels have some kind of free WiFi, with service about what you pay for it (nothing). Service at the far end of the hall in the hotel may be poor, and speeds may be pokey. The more expensive hotels tend to make you pay extra for service, and as time goes by, I begrudge this less and less because the service is usually much better. Many hotels have gone to wired access (Marriotts, most notably) to provide more control--you can't sit in your car in the hotel parking lot and poach free WiFi access with wired in-room connections.

Public WiFi hotspots, if anything, have become harder and harder to find. Many businesses that were experimenting with this service a year or two ago seem to have dropped the service--it costs money. Places like Starbucks and Barnes & Noble have service agreements with national providers like T-Mobile and AT&T. But access is still expensive. The going rate for 24 hours of access is still around ten bucks--extortionate since most travelers probably are only connected for an hour or less. Monthly subscriptions are still hovering around $40. This would be reasonable if the big outfits allowed roaming, but they don't. None of the big companies have enough hotspots in enough places to justify the expense, and few can afford to carry two or three $40/month fees just to check email on the road for ten or fifteen minutes.

Community WiFi projects are also struggling, like the St. Cloud, Florida project, where few people use the free service because of quality and access issues. WiFi looks cheap on the front end, often because wireless vendors have financial models that obscure the ongoing costs and take rate issues. If you do a true life cycle comparison with a fiber effort over twenty or thirty years, fiber is not just competitive, but much cheaper. And the real issue with wireless is that it does not provide the speeds that most homes and businessses will want or need in just three to five years. Design Nine is working on several fiber projects right now where we are working with financing specialists to develop some new and innovative ways to build fiber networks. As these projects progress, I'll keep you informed.

Should communities avoid WiFi projects? Absolutely not, but you need to know why you are doing it and how you are going to pay for and manage it over the long term. And you should not rely on wireless vendor promises of "build it and they will come." What St. Cloud has found out is that many people (perhaps most) are willing to pay for more expensive wired broadband connections rather than free but inferior WiFi. As I have been saying for a long time, communitywide wireless projects have to be approached very very carefully.

I have been traveling a lot lately, so I have had the opportunity to try out a lot of WiFi hotspots. The good news is that most hotels now have some kind of WiFi available. Business travelers can stay almost anywhere and count on having some kind of Internet access. I have not had to use my Earthlink dial up account in many months. Many "budget" hotels have some kind of free WiFi, with service about what you pay for it (nothing). Service at the far end of the hall in the hotel may be poor, and speeds may be pokey. The more expensive hotels tend to make you pay extra for service, and as time goes by, I begrudge this less and less because the service is usually much better. Many hotels have gone to wired access (Marriotts, most notably) to provide more control--you can't sit in your car in the hotel parking lot and poach free WiFi access with wired in-room connections.

Public WiFi hotspots, if anything, have become harder and harder to find. Many businesses that were experimenting with this service a year or two ago seem to have dropped the service--it costs money. Places like Starbucks and Barnes & Noble have service agreements with national providers like T-Mobile and AT&T. But access is still expensive. The going rate for 24 hours of access is still around ten bucks--extortionate since most travelers probably are only connected for an hour or less. Monthly subscriptions are still hovering around $40. This would be reasonable if the big outfits allowed roaming, but they don't. None of the big companies have enough hotspots in enough places to justify the expense, and few can afford to carry two or three $40/month fees just to check email on the road for ten or fifteen minutes.

Community WiFi projects are also struggling, like the St. Cloud, Florida project, where few people use the free service because of quality and access issues. WiFi looks cheap on the front end, often because wireless vendors have financial models that obscure the ongoing costs and take rate issues. If you do a true life cycle comparison with a fiber effort over twenty or thirty years, fiber is not just competitive, but much cheaper. And the real issue with wireless is that it does not provide the speeds that most homes and businessses will want or need in just three to five years. Design Nine is working on several fiber projects right now where we are working with financing specialists to develop some new and innovative ways to build fiber networks. As these projects progress, I'll keep you informed.

Should communities avoid WiFi projects? Absolutely not, but you need to know why you are doing it and how you are going to pay for and manage it over the long term. And you should not rely on wireless vendor promises of "build it and they will come." What St. Cloud has found out is that many people (perhaps most) are willing to pay for more expensive wired broadband connections rather than free but inferior WiFi. As I have been saying for a long time, communitywide wireless projects have to be approached very very carefully.

A coffee shop in Washington state had a guy arrested for using their "free" WiFi signal for three months without buying anything. The alleged WiFi poacher apparently just sat in his car in the parking lot nearly every day and used the Internet access without buying anything.

The shop finally called the cops, who told the guy to leave. When he returned later, the cops were called again and this time, they charged him with theft of services. The law here is murky, but it is a good example of how poorly many WiFi hotspots are managed. With different software or hardware, the store owner could limit the amount of time any one person uses the service per day, or could simply block the MAC address (a hard coded network address in each computer) of that computer.

Thinking about setting up a hot spot? Get good advice before jumping in.