On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 07:37 -0500, Peter Fleck wrote: > Hello, Howdy. Replies in-line. > 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. Most of the people I have spoken to who have actually managed to subscribe complain that it's either too slow, poor coverage, or no coverage and the only reason they haven't canceled is because they can't remember their login credentials or just don't care. My personal experience is that at my old home (41st & Humboldt Ave N) they have the equipment up, blasting at full power, 'USI Wireless Coming Soon'. Places I have gone and said 'wow, it would be great if I had wifi in this park' it was either such a poor signal I could not associate or there was simply no coverage to begin with. At the new place (Lake St & Nicollet) the service is active, and happily blasting away on channels 1, 6 and 11. > 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. >From running a commercial WiFi network believe me, I'm aware of legal output levels and the pressure from management to go outside of them when a node suddenly stops working because another legal user of the band is completely swamping the band nearby. With the configuration USI Wireless uses (dual omnidirectional antennas) there is simply no usable configuration of 'legal output levels' and 'it works' in many areas. If they've acquired licensed spectrum they're using in those areas it would be news to me. > > > 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. > I understand the "deal" they struck for this, they (Minneapolis) were warned when they were taking public input that USI Wireless would *never* be able to meet their promised goals. They still can't even though the technology has advanced, and they won't be able to in the near future, if ever. In the end it's my tax dollars being spent to pollute the spectrum for no gain (from my perspective). Minneapolis BIS blindly accepted the word of sales people that promised the moon. In the end I suspect USI Wireless will either go licensed, get enough government money to run a DSL or Cable line to most of their access points, or go bankrupt. They still won't be able to meet the requirements of their deal with Minneapolis. > > *) 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. Actually, Qwest does forbid it. http://www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/files/HSI_Subscriber_Agreement_ENG_v21_051509.pdf Page 10. Section 7 subsection (a) and (b) cover it quite clearly. > 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. There are obviously places where it can be made to work -- the need for access and community peer pressure can deal with the people interfering. The city of Minneapolis is not that small neighborhood though, nor is it lacking in connectivity options.