Hello, I've been a lurker for the current discussion. I joined the TCWUG-List as it was fading away a few years back and when I was very interested in the whole Wi-Fi municipal systems sprouting up around the U.S. For better or for worse, Minneapolis is the poster child of municipal Wi-Fi. I'm not a big supporter of the USI Wireless initiative and hoped that we would have a publicly owned system in Minneapolis instead. I blogged extensively as the system was built. I don't blog about it so much now (curse Twitter) but do get a post in here and there. Latest report here: http://www.pfhyper.com/weblog/2009/05/minneapolis-unwired-dead-zones-ious.html And many of the historical posts here: http://delicious.com/pfhyperblog/wireless I do sit on the Digital Inclusion Fund Advisory Committee which gets its money from USIW. There was an initial $500,000 infusion of which we still have $100,000. No word on when we can expect more from USIW (based on their profits). (You can get a copy of the City of Mpls/USIW contract + other papers at pfhyper.com.) I wanted to comment a bit on our local mesh and Matt, I hope you don't mind if I work with your last email. > *) Talking about mesh networking in the metro is fun and all, but it's > unrealistic. USI Wireless has absolutely failed in my opinion (the > little bit of actual coverage they have is only due to being well over > the legal FCC limits in some areas, and blasting regular consumer access > points out of the water.. not in the spirit of the unlicensed spectrum > laws). With over 10,000 subscribers (unverified, of course), I wouldn't say they have failed. I'm not a subscriber but I get an excellent signal at my home in Seward Neighborhood. People in this city do consider it an alternative and some people are very happy with it and it is significantly cheaper if you can pay out one or two years. It is NOT a solution for digital divide/inclusion issues although USIW does fund nonprofit initiatives via the Digi Inc. Committee I mentioned above. I would venture to say that they are not over any FCC limits and if you can prove that then I'll be the first to contact the FCC. It's not going to help anyone to spread misinformation. As for interfering with consumer access, yeah, my access gets hijacked several times a week (just have to reset but a pain). But its a legal hijack -- unlicensed spectrum is the wild, wild west right now and your neighbor is as likely to hijack you as USIW. Believe me, if USIW could stop everyone legally from interfering with their system, they would. > But hey, it's wonderful that my > tax dollars are going towards yet another horribly failed project while > also making my WiFi use a pain! USIW is a private company and not at all *directly* supported by tax dollars. Minneapolis is the anchor tenant and that is why the system is successful and still in place. There is indirect support. Minneapolis paid ahead for services (see my blog post) that they really aren't receiving. Council Members are not happy about this. Minneapolis Business Information Systems (BIS) predicted deep savings using Wi-Fi but they haven't materialized because USIW can't provide the coverage initially promised (and later revised). The City also has to put in new poles to hang transmitters at City cost. But USIW rents the space on these poles so eventually they will be paid for. > *) Be realistic. You may think you're paying for your unlimited internet > access to do with what you please (DSL, Cable, etc), but in most cases > you are directly forbidden by your terms of service from sharing it. Last I checked, Qwest DSL does not forbid sharing at least at the household level. Hard to believe but it was true. Not sure about the cablecos. I run a FON system here and provide access. I doubt if many people use it and I think you have to do some song and dances to stay on the system or pay. But sometimes they sell their WAPs really cheap (with antennas) and they can be flashed to an Open Source system. (I have not tried that.) Sorry that took up so much space. I hope you all find it useful information. I have some ideas for community mesh systems. They are working nicely in some places, some European cities in particular. They are a cheap way to provide Internet access if you are able to get the pipe to the Internet in place cheap. Or they can provide a closed neighborhood system of sharing. This can also be very valuable. So one idea would be to (un)wire the Cedar Riverside high rises and construct a WAN for residents, focusing on the Somali population. No Internet. This would likely require funding and nonprofit involvement. I don't see that as a big problem, you just get yourself a fiscal agent. The local Freegeek/TC Open Circuit group is in the process of becoming a 501C3 and might be interested. Good to see this list active again. Peter -- Peter Fleck Blog: http://www.pfhyper.com/blog Twitter: http://twitter.com/pfhyper pfhyper at gmail.com