Google WiFi Network for Mountain View Area has been deployed for almost
half year, from the group's discussion, I could see some are claiming
the network is very good, and some are saying the connection is
up/down, and not usable. I am wondering how many users are actually
having stable connections in Mountain View? After Google initially
deployed the APs on the poles by Mountain View streets, does Google
ever try to improve it based on users' complains?

My house is on California St. (cross street is Rengstorff ) and I can
rarely have the Google WiFi stable connected by using Ruckus MetroFlex
device (the PepLink is worse). I will be very lucky if I can have a
10-minutes connection in any one hour. I am wondering how many users
have the similar situation as mine in Mountain View, and they tried and
tried, and finally give it up. I cannot use Google's network even
though house (and window) is by the street, so I cannot image how the
people who are living away from the street can access Google's WiFi
network.

I wish that Google would listen to users' complain, and would try to
improve the network connectivity by either put up more APs or improve
their AP's performance.

Thanks!

Weili

been pretty happy with mine, i get about 300-500 kbps down and about
300 up, connection stays constant which is more important for me than
speed at the moment.  i can see about 5 googlewifi ap from my ruckus.
im on a second floor, i placed my ruckus about 6 feet from the floor,
next to the window and outer wall.  from the window, the closes
googlewifi ap is about 400 feet away (about 1 block) with trees
obstruction. aside from my issue of having to reboot  my ruckus every 2
days or so. seems to work. i noticed too that if i place my ruckus
elsewhere in the apartment, connection drops significantly. i suppose
if u can find a good place in your place, that might work better.

I set up my Ruckus on second floor by window (on street side), best of
all I can only see two google APs, most of time I can only see one AP
that is far beyond 400 ft I believe (maybe over 1000 ft with trees).
What I meant in my initial post was that the coverage from Google WiFi
is not enough. In the area of California St and Rengstorff Ave., the
APs are far apart, plus the trees are thick and tall. How many people
here reading the posts are living in this area and have a good coverage
by Google?

By the way, I have tried to move my Ruckus device around the room, but
it does not help very much. It is really frustrated to use it.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestion.

Weili

weili,

So it does not sound like it is a specific issue with your Ruckus unit, but
more of a lack of devices issue. However, can you provide the SNR value that
your Ruckus unit reads while connected? You can get this from Statistics /
Wireless section of the WebUI.

Thanks!

On 10/17/06, Weili <weili_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Eric:
     Thanks!
     Yes, I have been monitoring the SNR since I started to use Ruckus
in August. The best SNR value I monitored was 22 when it was after
Midnight (say 2:00 am ~ 3:00 am), and at that time I saw two Google APs
in the same channel. During daytime the best SNR values are between
16~17, and a lot of time the value fell down to 9~11. I even saw the
value was 5 and the Internet Connection State was of course
"Disconnected" from Ruckus statistics. It does not help how many times
I reboot the device. I think the APs are too far away or the trees are
too thick.

     By looking at the installed APs from Google map, I think I am in
the center of triangle from the three APs around. I am not close enough
to any of the APs. That must be the problem I am facing and I can not
do anything about it unless Google would install more APs in Califonia
St & Rengstorff Av area.

     Thanks!

Weili

I did not even realize it has been up that long! I found out about 2
months ago, and tried connecting, but couldnt.
I live near Farley St., and get an "OK" connection, using my HP V2410's
Broadcom wifi adapter. I work near Shoreline and get about the same
speed...
I once tried connecting near Therkauf (sp) elementary school, and
couldnt get connected there, even though I was right underneath an
access point! I was literally right underneath it.

I am surprised by how low the signal output is from Google's APs.
While I can see and connect from inside my home, the service isn't
useable at all no matter where I am while inside.  Yet, if I go outside
and position myself near Google's AP on the street, the signal from my
own cheapy AP is strong and very usable.

Area: California and Ortega, and i little father down that block.

Problem: I do not get any Google WiFi access points on my laptop unless
i drive to El Camino and Ortega (The Off Ramp).

Any suggestions on how to get a signal 3 blocks down ortega?

I am about 400 ft from the nearest Google WiFi Node and I had one of
the three Google suggested companies come by and test and setup a
system. After 2 hours of trying both Ruckus and Peplink systems we
could not get any connection from my house. When we move to within
100ft of the node we were able to get the Google WiFi splash page but
were not able to go any further. I was told that they would work with
the Google people to resolve the issue but never heard back. If I had
to guess I would say that the Mtn. View Google WiFi coverage is not as
good as we might have been lead to believe Now we wait and see how much
work Google will really do to make the system as good as they implied.
Or will it stall and in five years when the contract is up it may
disappear like ricochet WiFi system of several years back.

dja

We appreciate hearing feedback from the experiences you have all had
using Google WiFi, and wanted to take a moment to provide a few
updates.

We are in the process of installing additional nodes, which will
improve our coverage and reliability across the network. We have also
been visiting individual apartment complexes to discuss the possibility
of installing a node on their premises. If you have been unable to
access Google WiFi while using a WiFi modem, you may wish to contact
your property manager to arrange for a visit with members of the Google
WiFi team. To contact us, please use the form located at:
http://wifi.google.com/support/bin/request.py

Please note that the Google WiFi network is primarily an outdoor
network. Our nodes are located outdoors, and WiFi signals have
difficulty traveling through barriers such as trees or walls.
Additionally, laptop computers have limited capabilities when it comes
to transmitting the WiFi signal back to one of our nodes so that a
connection can be made.

To access the Google WiFi network from inside your home, we recommend
using a high-power WiFi modem. WiFi modems serve as an antenna,
increasing your ability to receive and transmit the Google WiFi signal.
For more information on WiFi modems, please visit
http://wifi.google.com/support/bin/topic.py?topic=9012

For a map of our node locations, please visit:
http://wifi.google.com/city/mv/apmap.html

Please direct any specific replies to the following address so that our
team can accurately document your experience using the Google WiFi
network:  http://wifi.google.com/support/bin/request.py

We appreciate your patience and support as we work to improve the
coverage of the Google WiFi network.

Hello, Google WiFi Guide:
    It is very encouraging to hear back from Google and also I am happy
to hear that Google is going to install more APs around for better
coverage.
    I am surprised that bobs said he could not access Google WiFI in
Area: "California and Ortega" . I saw an AP at cross of California &
Ortega (by the small park).
    I wish that an additional AP would be installed on the cross street
poles of California St & Rengstorff Av., and I think this additional AP
will cover the houses and appartments in that area.

    It is highly appreciated for the free services that Google provides
to the community. Just expect more and expect better, as always!

    Thank you!

Weili

Hi, I have been trying to acess GoogleWiFi for the last two months with
very spotty success. I am on N Shoreline near Middlefield, between two
nodes. I use a laptop on the second floor of an apartment complex.

I thought the extremely weak and intermittent signal was because of the
trees, but I took my laptop outside one evening, past the trees, where
I get a clear line of sight to a node (and the other node in the
distance). The signal was just as weak. I walked down the sidewalk
towards one node. I did not get a good signal until I was about three
parking spaces away from the light pole that the node was on. (Used
Netstumbler.) My laptop can pick up dozens of wifi networks inside,
including  a strong one from the Taco Bell which is three times farther
away than the Google nodes.

I have tried various equipment to strengthen the signal: repeaters,
range expanders, directional antennas, USB AP on an extension (so I can
put it outside). No improvement at all.

I can get connected with my laptop if I place the laptop in my bedroom
window (my office is at the opposite end of the apartment). But getting
connected is a tedious and lengthy process. The login always times out
and I have to repeat it half a dozen times. Strangely, once connected,
even with signal strength at "very low" I can surf OK. Are there enough
servers for the wifi login process?

(To help with logging in, I have switched my GoogleWiFi account from my
gmail email to a yahoo one so I do not have to wait for the servers to
find my email. Also deleted everything, esp the map, from that
slow-loading MV home page, but new stuff keeps on showing up. I can't
seem to make it stay blank--why is that, Google?)

So, my conclusion is that the network has a very weak signal. And if
you are between nodes, as I am, you are probably at the periphery of
both nodes' ranges--probably the worst place to be. More nodes? Boost
the power? I have given up on buying and returning equipment.

Love the free city-wide wifi concept, but am unable to use it.

Hope this info helps...

uthr

My thoughts exactly.  I can't use GoogleWiFi from my home.  But, I can
stand next to the pole with the node and use my AP that is inside my
home without any problems!

I wonder why Google is keeping the signal so low.   Maybe because they
they're thinking:  "Hey, we're honoring our contract by providing it."
But they keep low so no one will be able to use it, especially in
residential zones, and suck up their bandwidth.

Google -- turn up the power!

Google is not keeping the "signal low". These are 1W transmitters but when
they are overwhelmed with people connecting, it can make performance seem
suboptimal.

Just FYI.

On 10/28/06, NWTSCL <NWT...@gmail.com> wrote:

The number of users may effect performance (bandwidth), but it would
have no effect on overall signal strength.  If it would, all two-way
trunked radio systems throughout the world would have the same problem.
 And I doubt every node in every part of the city has this significant
number of users connected to cause this trouble at all hours day and
night.

They are keeping the 'signal low.'

Take a look at what signal strength means. They are not artificially keeping
the signal low. What would be the purpose? Do they really want to have upset
customers?

Again, this is a matter of contention based access. The more people that are
connected or attempting to connect, make the network perform less optimally.
Its a matter of physics.

However, the notion that Google would do this makes for good press.

On 10/28/06, NWTSCL <NWT...@gmail.com> wrote:

It means exactly as it sounds:  the intensity of the output from a
transmitter.  The number of receivers has no effect on the RF strength
that transmitter gives off.  Again, if what you are saying is true, the
same problem would happen with the millions upon millions of two-way
radio systems throughout the world.  It doesn't.

Only they know for sure. But one possible reason is easy to see:  the
higher the number of users, the more bandwidth that is sucked up.
Don't forget: Google has to pay for the bandwidth they offer.  It isn't
free...

Keeping the signal strength to a minimum would decrease the number of
users at any one time, wouldn't it?

What customers?  Google is under contract only to ~provide~ the
service, not to guarantee that the signal is usable by ~everyone~
~everywhere~ within Mountain View.  Let's see what happens to the
signal strength once their 5-year contract expires...

What do you mean?  What part of this whole thing are you saying will
"perform less optimally?"

Certainly not the signal strength.  Tell me:  how many people do you
think are connected to "my" node at 3 o'clock in the morning?
Certainly less than, let's say, 12 noon, right?  Then according to your
theory, overall signal strength should be higher at 3 AM.  It isn't...

You are applying 'physics' to the wrong subject.  Again, the number of
users would have absolutely no effect on the RF signal strength that
the nodes are putting out.  Please provide proof if you think
otherwise.

What is that supposed to mean?  Many people have reported here that the
signal output is too low.  What's wrong with asking Google to comment?

This seems to be a philosophical debate that is not going anywhere. Most
people want to connect, they could care less of the details. I guess if you
want to spend time outside by the light poles at 3am testing, you are far
more dedicated to this chat than I am.

Lets just be thankful that there is a network available for free.

On 10/29/06, NWTSCL <NWT...@gmail.com> wrote:

This isn't based on philosophy.  Either the RF signal output is weak or
it isn't.  And, as the entire subject of this thread is, either
residents (or users) in Mountain View are benefiting by Google WiFi or
they aren't.

Maybe so, but blaming the RF signal strength on the number of users is
incorrect and misleading.

Who ever said I did this?  All I said is that the signal output is
exactly the same at 3 AM as it is at 12 PM, which supports that the RF
strength has nothing to do with the number of users.  Your first
message today was posted at 3:47 AM, so you were up at the hour
yourself.

True.  But there is nothing wrong with trying to find out why it isn't
reasonably useable.  Who is going to be out on the street corner at any
time, let alone 3 AM, trying to use the internet -- especially in
residential zones within the city?  I can somewhat understand this in
commercial zones -- somewhat.  But residential?  But that is just about
the only coverage Google is offering.  Why?  My simple AP is accessable
at the street.  Why isn't their's under reverse circumstances?

Remember: this thread was started to find out who is benefiting from
this network.  It wouldn't exist if people reasonably are.

My initial comment was about the transmit power of the nodes and the
resulting effect that interference and heavy usage have on SIGNAL STRENGTH.
The more users that are on the system, the more messages that are on the
network. This means a device can miss beacons and probes and this can
directly correlate to low signal strength (since this is an independent
measure from the client or AP).

Again, the Tropos nodes have a transmit power of 1W (plus antenna gain of
8dBi). I am sure they are not lowering this for the Google network, since it
would make it nearly impossible to get decent coverage.

*signal strength* is the measure of how strongly a transmitted
signal<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_%28telecommunications%29>is
being received, measured, or predicted, at a reference point that is a
significant distance from the transmitting antenna. (taken right from
Wikipedia). Weak signal strength can also be caused by destructive
interference <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_interference> of the
signals from local towers in urban areas, or by the construction materials
used in some buildings causing rapid attenuation of signal strength.

So, NWTSCL, thanks for the exchange. I am sure our discussions can help to
educate others. If you were talking solely about Google "lowering" the
transmit power, than I apologize for confusion.

On 10/29/06, NWTSCL <NWT...@gmail.com> wrote:

Note how the definition that you posted from Wikipedia does not say
that 'heavy usage' is a cause for reduction in 'signal strength.'
'Heavy usage' isn't the cause for low transmit, so something else must
be. Interference can be a cause.  But it would also effect the signal
output of my own AP, which means that I should see comparable output
from it while standing by the Google node on the street.

Topos nodes have an output range of 14dBm-36dBm, which indicates that
not only are they adjustable, but they are significantly higher than
mine.  Mine is capable of only 15dBm and it doesn't have a high-gain
antenna.  I have no trouble using my AP, while standing near and far
beyond Google's node.  This is the at the same distance with the same
'construction materials' and a nearly identical amount of foliage that
may cause interference.  Realize, also, that they both operate in the
same 2.4 GHz band and that Netstumbler shows a significantly lower
amount of interfering noise with Google's node than with mine.  Are you
saying that my $50 AP offers better coverage than Google's?  Maybe I
made a better purchase than I first thought.

--

It's possible that there is simply a problem with one or more of the
nodes out there.  Rather than debate this issue, could folks mention
which nodes they think have an issue?  We can then check them out...

Hi,

Yes, please post the location/address of any nodes which don't seem to
be working as best they could.  We will investigate and report back any
findings.

Also, please bear in mind that we are continuously monitoring the
network and are making changes to better tune the network for the
users.  The more feedback we get in regards to performance, the better
job tuning we can do.

Thanks for your help.

How about everything between Sierra Vista and San Antonio, Central Expy
and E Charleston?  I know this is a large area.  But I have attempted
to use several nodes within it, receiving the same results throughout.

Ok, I just did a quick drive through that neighborhood.  In an
admittedly short, non-scientific, not thorough check, things seemed
just fine.  I'll be happy to investigate further if you'd be willing to
narrow my focus a bit.