For Immediate Release:

Altai Technologies' WiFi Base Station

and Smart Antenna Deployed by WiFi Salon in World Famous Park

Hong Kong, Nov 28, 2007 -WiFi Salon, which runs the parkwifi network via a concession from The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, has chosen Altai Technologies' A8 WiFi base station to upgrade Washington Square Park.

"We've been using the Altai A8 for special events in Columbus Circle, Union Square, and Washington Square over the last year, and the performance has been outstanding," said WiFi Salon's CTO Marcos Lara. "For congested RF environments there is no better solution in the market" commented WiFi Salon CEO Marshall Brown, "We were eager to deploy the Altai on the parkwifi network because it is best-of-breed. Our goal is to have Washington Square Park become the showcase for how public WiFi can be in New York."

What could well happen, especially in an urban environment, is that public WiFi will become the victim of WiFi’s over all success. At Union Square, NYC for instance, where we have one of our parkwifi locations, WiFi Salon has detected 215 other nearby networks. They interfere with our coverage, and affect our QoS, and of course interfere with each other. This is open spectrum, so that’s the way it goes.

Advances in technology will increase performance/QoS, but there are real limitations when it comes to RF interference.

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

The editorial makes no mention of the fact that first ePath has to raise $150 million in capital. One wonders what the market is for venture capital for muniWiFi deployments given Earthlink's travails. Keyspan Energy, their backhaul partner (they will provide fiber) could well back them. The other partner, Cisco, has at least the gear. Perhaps with the $150 million, once they get it, they will be able to cover a projected 750 square miles, which would come out to 200K a square mile.

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.

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.

In winter time coverage in Central Park at our eight locations was better than it is now. The two wireless bridges we installed in the Fall between two of our Central Park locations were shut down by the leaf heavy branches of spring and had to be repositioned.

We do very well in open fields, like Sheep Meadow and the Southern part of The Great Lawn, but have a significantly smaller coverage area around The Dairy Visitor’s Center, which is very much among the trees.

The reason leaves are a problem is because there is water in them. Likewise, heavy rains will have an effect on the signal. Of course if you are in a park in the heavy rain, you may not be opening up your laptop, or any WiFi enabled device.

So as the article details, partly because of the leaf problem, USI Wireless has had a tough go of it deploying a muniWiFi network. The Minneapolis network did, as the article omits, help to communicate details of the bridge collapse to the outside world through webcams during the time especially when the cell network was overburdened.

Tom Evslin, an expert on wireless and internet technologies, has a wonderful post on his blog Fractals of Change on what the two month old WiFi network was able to deliver as a communications system after the disaster. It says much about the value of a public WiFi network, how it can be quickly and effectively repurposed in case of disaster because it is open and not centrally managed.

Still, if you want an emergency communications system, you can’t let leaves intervene. You also don’t want spotty coverage, another problem that dogs citywide deployment plans, and which again is very much a function of the real spectrum and power limitations with WiFi.

For those contemplating or in the midst of a citywide deployment — Google, Earthlink — these performance issues undermine whatever business model may be contemplated by increasing costs in network infrastructure, by limiting service offerings, and by not meeting user expectations.

You can try every engineering trick in the book to improve coverage, quality, within the bounds set by the FCC on the 2.4GHz open spectrum, and it is amazing what can be done.

At the end of the day, though, expectations need to be reset around what WiFi does best. It is so tempting for a city to announce a MuniWiFi plan, put out an RFP. WiFi, though, should not be deployed as though it were the cell network, as though it would provide universal and mobile coverage indoors and out. If you pick your spots — where people gather, in business districts, in key municipal locations, you can put together a network of local portals that people will gravitate to when seeking to connect with their community, local government, and with localized rich media content.

Build community wells full of location specific info and services instead of trying to provide indoor plumbing to everyone. All WiFi is local.

Eric Jackson, the new CIO of Hartford cited in the WSJ article, has it right in our view:

Mr. Jackson sees the creation of a city Web portal for services and content that can be used to generate a return on their investment. ….”That’s where I think the real money is in terms of value,” he said. “It’s content, not transport.”

So yes, new models are needed, but we know what is not working now at least, and so that is causing us to function on what can be delivered, and where, and what. Keep it local, in short. As with the Internet — another open platform that fosters innovation — new uses for public WiFi will spring up spontaneously, in surprising and even lucrative ways. WiFi should be the Internet localized, a wireless intranet for a community. What will happen when the main social and economic spaces in our towns and cities are awash in wireless broadband? How will people use this ‘creative commons?’ As people begin to own and depend on their WiFi enabled devices more, the need for public WiFi will continue to grow and new revenue streams will emerge as more attention is paid to content and services, and the platform begins to be understood for what it is.

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.

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.

The poster, Alice LaPlante, notes that as a small business person she was disappointed to hear about all the delays.

Here, she hits on how muniWiFi should work — as an amenity for entrepreneurs and small businesses. Create Hot Zones for them. They congregate, dine, shop, build their businesses, hire. A great demographic to pursue.

The consumer play is one thing. The business improvement district play is another.

You can find the Network World Article here.

Earthlink’s new CEO Rolla Hoff said on their Q2 Earnings Report conference call ( a $16.2 million loss) that they won’t be pursuing more muniWiFi business until they can figure out how to make money at it, and would going forward seek deals where the municipality would come in as an anchor tenant to help bootstrap the network.

Perhaps he is now looking for the kind of deals AT+T for instance has with Riverside California, where they will provide city services — police, fire, ambulance, security — in the 4.9 GHz spectrum — and them piggyback muni WiFi at 2.4GHz on top of that. Esme Voss is a big proponent of that model, and it makes sense.

In sum, for muniWiFi to work, the WISP has to have a suite of muni solutions that the local municipality is willing to implement. From that foundation, from that platform, you can layer on a public WiFi network.

The big mistake so far in muniWiFi has been that WISPs have tried to duplicate the cell network and provide universal coverage. WiFi is a different animal. We need to focus on creating WiFi Hot Zones at key locations throughout a community, and not try to cover the whole community indoors and out. Otherwise, we will run into a wall — no, many of them. The deployments and the customer service will be a magnitude more expensive, while user satisfaction will plummet.

Promise people a good strong signal within a limited area, and deliver it, say, in twenty locations in a small city and you have something people will want, especially as more start to actually own a WiFi enabled device.

From

CCTV.com

08-01-2007 15:48

“Hong Kong has taken a major step forward towards becoming a wireless city, with the official launch of its WiFi system on Tuesday. WiFi is short for wireless fidelity, which enables people to log on to the Internet and receive e-mails on the move.

Free WiFi will be rolled out at about 350 sites over the next two years. The Hong Kong SAR government will prioritize sites frequented by the public, including libraries, community centers, parks and government buildings. And the SAR welcomes industry players to participate in the program as contractors, and explore new business opportunities by providing more wireless applications and mobile products to residents.”

Notice that:

1. They are not trying to cover Hong Kong, but picking out 350 strategic locations.

2. Schools, government buildings, community centers, parks, are deemed strategic.

3. There are not enough devices in people’s hands, and not enough to do with them. A successful deployment depends on changing that.

That, in a nutshell is how WiFi Salon believes muniWiFi can best happen.

We are of course aware that such a network would be a “walled garden,” with web activities more easily monitored, and more readily correlated with location — for authoritarian governments and marketing executives, a valuable platform.

So how does one provide personalized, location-aware information, advertising, services, on one hand while retaining privacy on the other? The dream of ‘the internet everywhere’ may become the nightmare surveillance state. How do we navigate this? Another topic, to be sure.

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.

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?