|
How are local wisps affected |
|
|
|
|
Written by jdubber
|
|
Wednesday, 04 October 2006 |
"I was wondering how local wisps were affected when bigger companies take over and offer free wi-fi service, such as the google wireless in San Francisco and also the town of Mountain View in California. Please respond if you are familiar with this as a large company may be offer free service in a town where I work for a local wisp."
viperm:
s it Earhlink?
We have ET here in Anaheim. Its not an issue we offer faster and more consistent PTMP connections etc. You are comparing apples to oranges. The Muni concept will never outperform the WISP model, but these bigger companies still dont see that and eventually they will see the bigger picture.
There are still going to be areas that they will not be able to hit and or the thruput of the thier Tropos nodes or whetever they are using are going to to be the weak link as thruput is max 11 megs (in reality 5.5 megs) as 802.11 is 1/2 duplex.
SO I dont see how they can sell a dedicated 1.5 connection to a business customer and offer an SLA like we do. If that customer is downloading or uploading all the time its going to keep that node busy and affecting the QOS to other customers who have dedicated services off that node.
To me the Muni deals are only going to work for the casual surfer or smaller business possibly but never going to work for a tier 1 business customer.
polk5:
I would agree to above but: Once these Co's spend millions of dollars to build a City out and realize that the tropo's just do not cut it, then all they have to do is ditch the tropos and turn to a wisp model. The main infrastructure will be canopy clusters all over the place. Why wouldnt they do this?
That being said, I think my customer service will always be better than a large corporation. So, I am not going to say I am not concerned but I really dont think it will affect my business. Take my alarm business for instance. I can compete heads up with ADT, Brinks and the other big guys all day long. I guess this is what keeps the small businesses going in the good ol USA.
viperm:
I would normally agree with you but Canopy still is a dirty and noisy device that is still not capable of doing what is needed in a city wide deployment in my opinion..
The # 1 reason is that you would need more of them because range is an issue and cities are trying to do things on a budget. Why use canopy when you can use say XYZ device with greater range, better thruput, better capabilities and you need less per city.
I.E. Why spend $5 million in gear when you can spend $2.5 million for better gear and better performance? ( these are just made up examples but you get my point)
In the end its a money thing with the cities as well as the company doing the deployment be it Earthlink, Google, or any ohter ISP that wants to put skin in the game the less thy have to pay to deploy the better the model looks and its all about ROI!
polk5:
The only way I can imagine to get the best coverage over a complete city with what I know about is canopy. Or it would have to be another gear that uses the sync method so you would not interfere with yourself while trying to cover as much as possible. I agree with you that canopy would not be able to handle the throughput on a tier1 business model. So, maybe trying to cover a (complete) city is just not feesible at this time with the technology available. I constantly get asked by certain areas for service. As much as I would like to have every block in the city covered, if the numbers do not justify a pop I pass on it. Of course I have this option. The Muni deals are forced to try to cover it all.
Original thread location |
Working with Competition