Recently in New York City Category

Covad has been great. New York City is a challenge, the parks are an even greater challenge, but we got it done. We got working DSL into 17 park locations and ADSL2+ into Columbus Circle, The Sheep Meadow, Washington Square Park, Summerstage, with Union Square pending and other locations also upgradable.

What does that mean for the user? Free high speed WiFi, with the capacity to support multimedia and a good number of simultaneous users. ADSL2+ tripled our capacity. Visit any of our free WiFi Hot Spots here.

Here is the rest of the press release, also available as a google search here.

, Wayport Among Providers That Rely on Covad's T1 and DSL to Connect Hotspots in Airports, Parks, and Other Public Areas

In what seems to fly in the face of the new conventional wisdom post Earthlink's travails that large scale muni wireless deployments are dead, a franchise to build a muni-WiFi network over Nassau and Suffolk Counties was awarded to "newcomer" ePath to provide WiFi service.

You can read the Times article here.

ePath has an infrastructure partner in Cisco, and a fiber backhaul provider in Keyspan Energy, so they come to the table with something. All they need to do now is to raise $150 million dollars to build the network. Nassau / Suffolk will not be providing any funds or committing to purchase any services from ePath. It is all upon them to find the backers willing to take the risk.

The Wall Street Journal story is here.

As a purveyor of a WiFi Hot Spot network in 17 locations in ten NYC parks in 4 boroughs, WiFi Salon can well attest to the problem that leaves present in terms of providing reliable coverage.

New York City is the Media Capital of the World. Its destiny is to become the wireless digital media capital of the world.

What this town needs right now is a public space that is awash in broadband WiFi. Lincoln Center Plaza now has WiFi. Imagine what the world’s largest performing arts center will now do with WiFi in their plaza.

Our parkwifi Hot Spots are being all outfitted with ADSL2+ to handle the demands of public wireless multimedia.

With such capacity, our locations will be venues where leading edge wireless digital arts and cultural content can be broadcast, and new immersive wireless experiences can be staged.

WiFi Salon believes there should be venues i.e. Salons where NYC’s arts and cultural community can present to the public and where technology and media companies can offer what a wireless world will look like.

Bob Frankston is someone I have gotten to know a bit via The Cook Report as an expert on information technology policy. Here, he argues that:

1. Muni Wireless should not be about trying to create yet another network.

2. There is enough infrastructure out there to provide communities with broadband as a shared resource.

3. Creating such shared environments is a software fix — think FON where your wireless router is opened up securely for the use of others while your traffic is secured.

4. It should not look to become the cure all for everything — in some cases, wired solutions will be superior.

5. We should not overburden MuniWiFi with grand expectations and requirements. Let’s be modest, and keep the commitments low. Grand projects are both expensive and unrealistic in terms of expectations on performance, service delivery.

Now I am very sympathetic to this argument. MuniWiFi should be thought of as local, grass roots, as an aggregation and sharing of available resources.

You have your Boingos and your FONs — companies that seek to aggregate routers. Anyone who has ever opened a laptop in a city will see many WiFi networks in the vicinity, some open, some secure. Here is a map of available WiFi networks in NYC created by my CTO Marcos Lara via The Public Internet Project in 2002:

As you can see, even in 2002 there were a lot of networks, but how to get people to share?

How do you incent people to share their bandwidth, and do it securely — of course without running afoul of the local telecoms?

Our vote is to work with BIDs, (Business Improvement Districts), Chambers of Commerce and community groups so that they understand the virtue of creating a common resource in key areas in the community. The collection of access points could be fashioned into a single platform via common interfaces (local portals), router firmware, and backend management, with the need to augment the existing patchwork with new access points.

The solution is not just wireless, as Bob states, but would involve a mix of wired connectivity options as well. Having ADSL2+ lines from Covad, for instance, as strategic backhaul for local WiFi Hot Zones, would for WiFi Salon be a part of the solution —so long as they are amenable to shared connections.

Well, we all know the winning model for muniWiFi is not here yet. Here is the current litany of pain from Fast Company: Fast Cities Struggle to Go Wireless

People are discovering that WiFi cannot compete side by side with the telcos to provide universal broadband access over a large geographic area with anything like the QoS that people expect. Cell gives people universal coverage. They want their muniWiFi to provide it, especially if they are being asked to pay for it.

Mesh would be the way to go, except the attenuation (degradation of signal) between hops makes the technology — so far — not nearly as robust and cost effective as it needs to be. Earthlink/Philly/Tropos is what is cited as the main example.

What everyone seemed to forget as they were laying out their plans for a wireless municipal network is that WiFi by FCC regulation, and given where it is on the spectrum, doesn’t penetrate well — into buildings, through trees, down the hall, etc. People also forgot that this is open, unlicensed spectrum, subject to interference from cordless phones, microwave ovens, baby monitors, fish tanks (Wi Fi can’t penetrate water), other WiFi networks, etc.

WiFi itself was created by people who took the thin slice of free or junk spectrum alloted by the FCC and went with it well beyond what anyone could have anticipated. That said, there are continued limitations with WiFi that correspond to laws of physics. More robust spectrum at a higher power level is what is really needed.

In the meantime, let’s take what WiFi does well — provide local broadband connectivity. Let’s create a local wireless broadband experience within a neighborhood public space or commercial corridor.

Forget city networks. Too big, too bold, wrong paradigm for the spectrum you have been alloted. Dig “community wells” rather than trying to lay all the pipes necessary for “indoor plumbing.” Don’t go toe to toe with cable and the local telco and try to be the third player. You will lose because you will have a lot of the headaches and overhead of a telco — the in-house wired infrastructure, a large sales, marketing and customer service force — and not nearly the means given WiFi’s limitations to deliver a service that can compete in terms of price and quality, not with DSL prices continuing to drop, and I daresay $99 voice, cable and internet triple plays to be had at internet speeds far far higher than what WiFi would provide indoors.

We should try to instead create Community WiFi, as opposed to Consumer WiFi. Establish Hot Zones that are highly local, not mobile or municipal. WiFi Salon believes WiFi should be established the community’s centers — the schools, libraries, parks, public squares, the business districts. If you try to bring something to everyone everywhere, most certainly you will spend too much and still come up short because in the end you won’t be able to deliver enough to individual homes and offices. As a location-based service in key areas — well that is another matter.

The Wall Street Journal today had an interesting article on one potential business model that would support MuniWiFi: Advertising.

Here’s the link:).

The article discusses how the ad supported muniwifi model has not taken hold because large advertisers cannot buy ads in bulk or across large areas because WiFi is a very local and small scale thing. Each municipality is a separate negotiation. If you are selling or promoting a national brand, that is a problem.

One potential answer, according to the article, is to aggregate the locations, get a hundred providers to sign up with your ad service, and then turn around to the major brands and sell that space. This is the JiWire strategy. They are a WiFi directory service, a provider of WiFi security solutions, and now in conjunction with Microsoft a provider of advertising network services.

The value proposition is this: You are a Wireless Service Provider (WISP). You run their ad platform on your network. They have many dozens of networks signed up. They are able thus to grab ad dollars from national advertisers because they now have the reach and scale necessary, and they split the revenue with the WISP. Free WiFi, ad supported.

Will this work? I would say that unless this otherwise top-down platform allows also for a means by which to create highly local ads, and support user generated content for reviews, recommendations, new locales, this alone will just will not work for (free) muni WiFi.

A director from Digitas noted that people would be very likely to tune when watching the obligatory ten second video that would pay for the free WiFi. Maybe so, but the medium — broadband wireless internet — is going have advertising possibilities — interactive, location-based, IP based — that this re-purposing of desktop ad technology just lacks, and which is now, as noted, real tired.

We respectfully submit that WiFi’s strength is that it is the internet, localized. Local content, services, and yes, advertisements. Advertising is relevant to the extent that it is actionable. With WiFi, the customer is the point of sale, and a WiFi Zone and a Commercial Zone can be one and the same.

Integrate local advertising with a local interactive map, geolocate the content, enable user created content. Keep it hyper local, aggregate. The Long Tail, if you will.

We believe we are a ways from where you can show the right ROI to local businesses using traditional ad placement sales: How many devices / users would you have to have on a network to create enough sales to even pay for a $135 ad for a pizzeria. The question is, where do we see the right density of devices in use at WiFi Hot Spots —2008? 2010? — to command the ad rates needed to sustain the local WiFi network? Microsoft and JiWire have their projections. More revenue sources beyond advertising is required for now.

We believe strongly that lighting up a commercial corridor and seeding the area with wireless screens, kiosks, handhelds, and providing a local interactive map will create advertising solutions that will be all the more effective for being part of an “immersive” wireless experience. Do large brands even have a place here?

WiFi Salon has been asked often “What is the capacity of your network?” “How many simultaneous users can you have at any one Hot Spot?” Currently, WiFi Salon has 3 Mbps DSL lines to all its locations, with Columbus Circle and Sheep Meadow upgraded to 8 Mbps with Covad’s new ADSL2+ lines, and with Washington Square, Union Square, Summerstage, and The Delacorte/Great Lawn getting the same upgrade.

What does what we have now deployed, 3 Mbps, get us? If this DSL line was say serving a small office and several people at the same time were trying to download something, performance would suffer unless of course there was some kind of bandwidth throttling.

By bandwidth throttling, we mean apportioning to each user a certain amount of the pipe when they download — for us it is now 200 kbps. As a Youtube video only requires 55 kbps, we consider this a sufficient amount.

In this scenario, if say 15 people were downloading a video four times as bandwidth intensive ( better resolution, larger size ) as the standard Youtube video at the same time, that 3 Mbps pipe would accommodate only 15 users.

Real world, user behavior is quite different. Culling from years of data analysis in administration of the Bryant Park Wireless Network, Marcos Lara, my CTO, and network architect found that the most congested his network ever got was ~75 users on about 2.4 Mbps of the available 3.0 Mbps.

Bryant Park has, to be sure 2 T-1s, which are dedicated, versus our one DSL at each location, which is “best effort.” Shouldn’t 2 T-1’s then outperform? Not necessarily, so we manage the network, allocating bandwidth per user, shaping traffic.WiFi Salon believes that we will witness the same performance on its network. 3 Mbps well managed will support around 70 users, that we will see the same performance on the parkwifi network that Marcos was able to achieve at Bryant Park.

At ~$900 a month for two T-1’s it would not be financially possible to install T-1’s at all 17 of our locations. Byrank Park has the luxury of being a location that is at one physical address, we do not. This leaves us with DSL as our only consistently reliable solution.

So the question is can we provide a similar experience to Bryant Park’s dedicated two T-1s (1.5 Mbps each), versus our single DSL lines at each location.

The answer is yes, thru traffic shaping. Each of our DSL location employs network traffic shaping to ensure each user gets a quality experience similar to that Marcos was able to achieve at Bryant Park.

For example, in Washington Square recently, we had 23 simultaneous users consuming just 688 kbps of bandwidth, or less than 25% of the 3 Mbps capacity. This is due to the nature of web surfing and Internet usage. The truth is that web surfing behavior in the real world consists of people mostly reading and writing documents, which uses up no bandwidthand the time a user is actually transferring data is quite small. this is not the case with VOIP and Video, but those still represents a small but growing amount of Internet traffic at this time.

Over the next several weeks we will be nearly tripling our capacity with the new ADSL2+ lines in Washington Square and at five other key locations. this will further increase each users experience. however there are still other factors involved in how many simultaneous users can we support.

If more than 70 users were all trying to transfer data with the same wireless access point at the same time any wireless network would start to experience wireless network congestion that limits the all the connected clients ability to communicate effectively.

This “crosstalk” — too many trying to be communicate on the same wireless frequency can only be addressed thru the addition of more wireless access points to share the user load.

WiFi Salon would start to worry about crosstalk when usage reaches around 70 simultaneous users. Such as if there was an event we were hosting that might attract a larger number of users for an extended period of time. in those cases we bring out our big guns, very special wireless hardware, that can really handle a heavy load. it is expensive but well worth the cost if you’re hosting a special event.

One such piece of equipment is a world class radio manufactured by Altai. For distance, performance, quality of service, and we have seen nothing better.

Combine Altais with ADSL2+ in a commercial district, you really would have something. It works really as best as WiFi can within very noisy urban and congested environments.

WiFi Salon would start to worry about the crosstalk problem at around 70 users. If there was an event we were hosting that might attract larger numbers, we’d bring out our very favorite piece of hardware, the Altai.

This is a world class radio — for distance, performance, quality of service, we have seen nothing better. Combine Altais with ADSL2+ in a commercial district, you really would have something. It works really as best as WiFi can within very noisy urban and congested environments.

As it is, when we look at historical data on usage, we note at no more than 1% of park goers will log on a park’s WiFi network on a given day. In other words, 7,000 people would have to be on the Sheep Meadow at the same time for us to be concerned we were hitting capacity, at least in terms of crosstalk. Crosstalk, and not bandwidth, would be the first problem — and now especially at Sheep Meadow after its upgrade to ADSL2+.

So if crosstalk appears to be the limiting factor, and not bandwidth, why are we adding the ADSL2+ lines? What if we were able to give each user a larger ‘pipe’ than is otherwise available in public WiFi Hot Spots? How much better can we make the user’s experience? How much more in the way of multimedia could we support?

We want the very best speeds available, and we want to support as many users as possible. We believe that WiFi’s true strength lies in its ability to deliver rich local multimedia content, services and experiences, and local high speed wireless connectivity.

WiFi, a low power piece of open spectrum as regulated by the FCC, has many inherent real world limitations. The WiFi industry, born by accident and incredible resourcefulness, is engineering feat by engineering feat, eke-ing out further performance enhancements within the very restrictive parameters that constitute its regulation.

WiFi Salon’s mission is work with companies that are seeking to push the technology as far as it can go, where let’s say for now 70 people at a WiFi Hot Spot can all have a rich media experience. With the parkwifi network, we are providing park goers in New York with a free amenity that we will continue to scale as needs evolve.