The analysis that casts sorta-blame on Earthlink for all municipal Wi-Fi network failures is a stretch at best. Portland, for one, certainly did not demand that a company offer free service, and they were pretty clear in the RFP about their anchor-tenancy interests and requirements. The parking meter SNAFU came up before MetroFi completed their contract with the city, and might have been a good time for them to back out, if they felt, at that time, that anchor tenancy was imperative.
-- Michael Weinberg President Personal Telco Project, Inc.
"In a letter to Portland officials dated May 13, MetroFi chief executive Chuck Haas offered to sell the network to the city for $894,000"
I'd just like to point out, that for $894,000, Personal Telco could do what we did on Mississippi Ave. at least 60 times over. In fact, we'd probably be able to do it closer to 90 times over, since some of the costs would be pooled between each neighborhood.
So, if anyone out there is considering purchasing MetroFi as a public benefit, please call me first. You can write it off, and we can help Portland out with some Wi-Fi that is free of Microsoft spyware and ads.
Michael
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Michael Weinberg
> The analysis that casts sorta-blame on Earthlink for all municipal > Wi-Fi network failures is a stretch at best. Portland, for one, > certainly did not demand that a company offer free service, and they > were pretty clear in the RFP about their anchor-tenancy interests and > requirements. The parking meter SNAFU came up before MetroFi completed > their contract with the city, and might have been a good time for them > to back out, if they felt, at that time, that anchor tenancy was > imperative.
> -- > Michael Weinberg > President > Personal Telco Project, Inc.
-- Michael Weinberg President Personal Telco Project, Inc.
> I'd just like to point out, that for $894,000, Personal Telco could do > what we did on Mississippi Ave. at least 60 times over. In fact, we'd > probably be able to do it closer to 90 times over, since some of the > costs would be pooled between each neighborhood.
Why don't you put that in a comment on the Rogoway story's page? And in a letter to the editor.
Makes more sense than telling the choir.
-- Michael Rasmussen Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity
>> I'd just like to point out, that for $894,000, Personal Telco could do >> what we did on Mississippi Ave. at least 60 times over. In fact, we'd >> probably be able to do it closer to 90 times over, since some of the >> costs would be pooled between each neighborhood.
> Why don't you put that in a comment on the Rogoway story's page? And in a > letter to the editor.
> Makes more sense than telling the choir.
> -- > Michael Rasmussen > Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity
-- Michael Weinberg President Personal Telco Project, Inc.
Is MetroFi going to remove all the light pole nodes? Do we know what they spent on each one?
I'd pay for upkeep, power and net access if "they" would move one of the ones on 39th or 42nd between Gladstone and Holgate to the light pole at the corner of my lot. (That's on Boise between 39th and 42nd)
It may not be a reasonable idea. But what if, perhaps, the city were to acquire the physical nodes as part of the contract dissolution and use PTP to repurpose them into neighborhood supported nodes.
-- Michael Rasmussen Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity
<mich...@personaltelco.net> wrote: > "In a letter to Portland officials dated May 13, MetroFi chief > executive Chuck Haas offered to sell the network to the city for > $894,000"
> I'd just like to point out, that for $894,000, Personal Telco could do > what we did on Mississippi Ave. at least 60 times over. In fact, we'd
If metrofi folds, there is an opportunity for the city to take possession of the assets, though the contract seems vague about how the price (if any) is determined. its a smart move by metrofi to get this $894k amount out in the open as it may be the starting point for negotiations if the city uses section 8.25.6.
http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?a=129511&c=43149 Section 8.25.6 "...Should removal be required, the City retains, at its sole discretion, the right to take ownership of the assets that remain in the Municipal Right of Way in lieu of involving the security instrument pursuant to ORS 221.470."
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/221.html 221.470: "...(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, if all the property and materials referred to in subsection (1) of this section are not removed within one year after the termination or expiration of the grant, privilege or franchise or such further time as may be granted by the state or municipal corporation, all and every part thereof shall be forfeited and escheated to the state or municipal corporation wherein situated."
if the $800k+ price holds, i would expect the city to let go of the deal and have metrofi use the bond in reserve to take the gear down.
if the city can buy the network for next to nothing, then the future of the hardware gets interesting.
All this talk of using whats on the ground now has got me wondering this...given the craptacular reviews of how well the system works(other than SamC)...what would need to happen to make the setup usable by the masses?
Russell, is it just placement that makes the Metrofi setup so bad? Is that correctable?
If its not just the placement but the gear they are using, whats the point of buying a lemon when that money could be spent on something more useful?
The other thought is, how much of this does the city want to get into? Would it make more sense to fund/grant money/resources to groups like FreeGeek, PTP, etc etc in order to build and maintain things?
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Don Park <d...@personaltelco.net> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Michael Weinberg > <mich...@personaltelco.net> wrote:
> > I'd just like to point out, that for $894,000, Personal Telco could do > > what we did on Mississippi Ave. at least 60 times over. In fact, we'd
> If metrofi folds, there is an opportunity for the city to take > possession of the assets, though the contract seems vague about how > the price (if any) is determined. its a smart move by metrofi to get > this $894k amount out in the open as it may be the starting point for > negotiations if the city uses section 8.25.6.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Aaron Baer <aar...@personaltelco.net> wrote: > If? > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Don Park <d...@personaltelco.net> wrote: >> If metrofi folds, there is an opportunity for the city to take
someone may take them up on their asking price and buy them out. if noone bids for the company, then thats what i mean by folds.
Don Park wrote: > If metrofi folds, there is an opportunity for the city to take > possession of the assets, though the contract seems vague about how > the price (if any) is determined.
Good riddance to MetroFi but at what cost? $250k has already been spent by the city. Any attempt to get more money for this project will most likely be met with contempt at all levels. Aside from VeriLAN, does anyone remember who the other locals were that bid on the contract?
May 13, 2008 Mr. Logan Kleier City of Portland 1120 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 450 Portland, Oregon 97204
Logan, I am writing today to request a call or meeting with you to discuss the City of Portland network. MetroFi's goal was to have the City of Portland network producing enough revenue to cover expenses and even with the roll out of Microsoft SideGuide, the best advertising platform we have for Wi-Fi revenue generation, we are still not covering our costs for network operation and maintenance. As I discussed on the phone, MetroFi has three options to consider. The first is for the City to purchase the network from MetroFi; the second is to sell the network to a 3rd party; the third is to shut the network down.
The City of Portland network is comprised of 598 access points and is used by approximately 16,000 residents and visitors per month. April had 306,000 hours of use. Our operating expenses include pole attachment fees and power, the BAP locations, backhaul transport via microwave the Pittock Building and Internet transit. These expenses are approximately $15,000 per month.
To purchase the network, we would propose a price of $1,500 per AP or $894,000. MetroFi would train the City on the network operation and transfer assets, spare equipment and knowledge to the City. MetroFi is also discussing network purchase with other prospective buyers, but there is no assurance that we can complete a sale.
The third option is to remove the equipment, beginning in June 2008.
I understand this is a lot to digest, which is why I have requested a meeting or call to allow us to discuss these options in more detail. We are looking to understand the city's position as soon as possible as our intent is to begin network shut-down and equipment removal the by the end of June if we do not have a buyer.
Please let me know a convenient time to meet and discuss these options with you at your first opportunity.
> Russell, is it just placement that makes the Metrofi setup so bad? Is > that correctable?
My prognosis based on our work for unwirepdx-watch.org is that the principle (technical) problem with the MetroFi mesh is insufficient density. This hypothesis was solidified when we talked to SkyPilot engineers who said they believed the Portland network to be underdeployed. The hardware is good, there just isn't enough of it to achieve the level of coverage required by the contract.
Now, that's just the technical side of things. I really don't think that an additional 30% usable coverage would have saved the ill-conceived business model that ultimately bankrupted them.
My ideal resolution for the city would be for them to buy up some of these APs (which at $1500 each is a good deal), and deploy them with greater density in a few neighborhood-sized areas (high-use and/or low-income neighborhoods would be ideal). The network(s) could be operated by Personal Telco (hopefully in collaboration with city IT staff) and the bandwidth provided by the city (ideally on now-dark city fiber). With Personal Telco running the networks using our model, they would provide more local services, features, and opportunity for novel use and education, which would be a great benefit to citizens and would greatly increase the value of the network (compared to the strict internet-portal-with-ugly-ads service that is offered now).
That's what /should/ happen. But my experience and cynicism predicts that what will happen, is either (a) metrofi will remove their gear in the dark of night and retreat with their tails' between their legs or (b) someone like microsoft (who has so much capital, they can easily absorb a stupid idea) will buy the network and continue to run it is as-is principally as a means to spy on people. Outcome (a) just leaves Portlanders with a bad experience, less money, and low expectations for wireless networks. Outcome (b) leaves Portlanders with the same nearly worthless network and unethical spyware they have now.
Personal Telco's roll here (IMHO) is to try as hard as bloody possible to avoid the crummy outcomes and endorse the good ones. Personal Telco failed to provide guidance to the city the first time around. We knew it was a terrible idea (the proof is in the podcasts) and we did speak our mind but I don't think we shouted loud enough. It's nice to be right, but I think the real lesson here is that PTP needs to be more assertive with our advise.
I'd suggest active PTPers sit down over a beer or two ASAP and discuss a strategy for PTP to take. A press release might be a good idea. Writing letters would be an excellent idea. What else?
> Good riddance to MetroFi but at what cost? $250k has already been > spent > by the city. Any attempt to get more money for this project will most > likely be met with contempt at all levels. Aside from VeriLAN, does > anyone remember who the other locals were that bid on the contract?
Winfield Wireless was the only other local respondent. Other responders included earthlink, us internet, and mobile pro.
Tyler Booth // President ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002 921 SW Washington St, Suite 224 Portland OR 97205
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Tyler Booth <ty...@stephouse.net> wrote:
> Good riddance to MetroFi but at what cost? $250k has already been spent > by the city. Any attempt to get more money for this project will most > likely be met with contempt at all levels. Aside from VeriLAN, does > anyone remember who the other locals were that bid on the contract?
> Winfield Wireless was the only other local respondent. Other responders > included > earthlink, us internet, and mobile pro.
You're leaving out Verilan. Their representative was very vocal at the City Council meeting that approved the MetroFi contract; arguing that the city was making a big mistake.
>> Russell, is it just placement that makes the Metrofi setup so bad? Is >> that correctable?
> My prognosis based on our work for unwirepdx-watch.org is that the > principle (technical) problem with the MetroFi mesh is insufficient > density. This hypothesis was solidified when we talked to SkyPilot > engineers who said they believed the Portland network to be > underdeployed. The hardware is good, there just isn't enough of it > to achieve the level of coverage required by the contract.
I have had an "active" MetroFi device at the end of my block, which is about 200' away. I've never been able to connect to it for more than a few seconds, either looking out my plain-glass window or from my front steps. This suggested, to me, that there were issues with the radio communications between me and the AP (i.e. I hear it, but it doesn't hear me). Would you not attribute this to a quality issue with the SkyPilot hardware? It's hard to imagine deploying at a density that would put a client at less than 200'.
Admittedly, I have not attempted to diagnose the connection process step-by-step, but my (Apple connection indicator) seems to suggest that the issue has to do with signal strength, and not an inability to get DHCP or another network issue.
> Now, that's just the technical side of things. I really don't think that > an additional 30% usable coverage would have saved the ill-conceived > business model that ultimately bankrupted them.
Amen, we've said this from the start.
> My ideal resolution for the city would be for them to buy up some of > these APs (which at $1500 each is a good deal), and deploy them with > greater density in a few neighborhood-sized areas (high-use and/or > low-income neighborhoods would be ideal). The network(s) could be > operated by Personal Telco (hopefully in collaboration with city IT > staff) and the bandwidth provided by the city (ideally on now-dark city > fiber). With Personal Telco running the networks using our model, they > would provide more local services, features, and opportunity for novel > use and education, which would be a great benefit to citizens and would > greatly increase the value of the network (compared to the strict > internet-portal-with-ugly-ads service that is offered now).
I have the sense that the city has no interest in dropping anymore money into this, and MetroFi is likely uninterested in selling only a portion of the hardware to someone. I happen to have a meeting scheduled with Brendan Finn from Commissioner Saltzman's office, for totally unrelated issues, next week. I'll bring this up as well.
I still think that all the money being discussed can go a lot further using open-source devices like the Metrix units, than with the closed SkyPilots which are largely unproven, at least to the general public. $1500 would cover 2 dual radio Metrix devices, plus antennas and mounting hardware while leaving money for pizza, beer or flyers to advertise the new nodes.
> That's what /should/ happen. But my experience and cynicism predicts > that what will happen, is either (a) metrofi will remove their gear in > the dark of night and retreat with their tails' between their legs or > (b) someone like microsoft (who has so much capital, they can easily > absorb a stupid idea) will buy the network and continue to run it is > as-is principally as a means to spy on people. Outcome (a) just leaves > Portlanders with a bad experience, less money, and low expectations for > wireless networks. Outcome (b) leaves Portlanders with the same nearly > worthless network and unethical spyware they have now.
If I were betting, I'd probably choose (a), though Personal Telco could step in and do some good here that would keep people from feeling totally burned.
> Personal Telco's roll here (IMHO) is to try as hard as bloody possible > to avoid the crummy outcomes and endorse the good ones. Personal Telco > failed to provide guidance to the city the first time around. We knew it > was a terrible idea (the proof is in the podcasts) and we did speak our > mind but I don't think we shouted loud enough. It's nice to be right, > but I think the real lesson here is that PTP needs to be more assertive > with our advise.
> I'd suggest active PTPers sit down over a beer or two ASAP and discuss a > strategy for PTP to take. A press release might be a good idea. Writing > letters would be an excellent idea. What else?
I'm sure this will be a hot topic at the next Weekly, which will be at Amnesia on N. Mississippi Ave. I hope that anyone interested in the future of WiFi in Portland will make it.
Thanks,
Michael
-- Michael Weinberg President Personal Telco Project, Inc.
> I still think that all the money being discussed can go a lot further > using open-source devices like the Metrix units, than with the closed > SkyPilots which are largely unproven, at least to the general public. > $1500 would cover 2 dual radio Metrix devices, plus antennas and > mounting hardware while leaving money for pizza, beer or flyers to > advertise the new nodes.
A good point. I'd rather have two Metrix's and a case of beer than a Skypilot any day. But, since the sky-pilots are already there, and it's conceivable (if extremely unlikely) that the city could buy a few, it might be an outcome worth considering. It seems such a shame for all of them to get torn down and then chucked in a warehouse somewhere to rot.
> I still think that all the money being discussed can go a lot further > using open-source devices like the Metrix units, than with the closed > SkyPilots which are largely unproven, at least to the general public. > $1500 would cover 2 dual radio Metrix devices, plus antennas and > mounting hardware while leaving money for pizza, beer or flyers to > advertise the new nodes.
I agree that this is a better option than spending money on traditional advertising. Or perhaps consider something smaller than a full page ad? Speaking of Metrix, has anone tried out the Nanostation 2 APs from Ubiquiti for only $79 MSRP? http://ubnt.com/products/ns2.php
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Gary <g...@eyetraxx.net> wrote:
> On 5/17/08, Michael Weinberg wrote:
>> I still think that all the money being discussed can go a lot further >> using open-source devices like the Metrix units, than with the closed >> SkyPilots which are largely unproven, at least to the general public. >> $1500 would cover 2 dual radio Metrix devices, plus antennas and >> mounting hardware while leaving money for pizza, beer or flyers to >> advertise the new nodes.
> I agree that this is a better option than spending money on traditional > advertising. Or perhaps consider something smaller than a full page ad? > Speaking of Metrix, has anone tried out the Nanostation 2 APs from > Ubiquiti for only $79 MSRP? http://ubnt.com/products/ns2.php
Indeed, the Nanostations and Powerstations are both very cool and powerful devices.
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Weinberg <mich...@personaltelco.net> writes:
Gary> Speaking of Metrix, has anone tried out the Nanostation 2 APs Gary> from Ubiquiti for only $79 MSRP? Gary> http://ubnt.com/products/ns2.php
Michael> Indeed, the Nanostations and Powerstations are both very cool Michael> and powerful devices.
Just a warning, I've been using some on a project in McMinnville and have had some reported problems. On one of them, apparently, the ethernet died shortly after deployment. There have been reports of non-workieness. We are in the process of working through the issues.
That said, my first-hand experience has been good. I've used them in hotels as both a client device and an ap. It has a nice admin interface, better than most I've seen.
-- Russell Senior, Secretary russ...@personaltelco.net
>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Weinberg <mich...@personaltelco.net> writes:
> Gary> Speaking of Metrix, has anone tried out the Nanostation 2 APs > Gary> from Ubiquiti for only $79 MSRP? > Gary> http://ubnt.com/products/ns2.php
> Michael> Indeed, the Nanostations and Powerstations are both very cool > Michael> and powerful devices.
> Just a warning, I've been using some on a project in McMinnville and > have had some reported problems. On one of them, apparently, the > ethernet died shortly after deployment. There have been reports of > non-workieness. We are in the process of working through the issues.
There is also one going in at Pioneer Square, which should increase the coverage of that node nicely.
> That said, my first-hand experience has been good. I've used them in > hotels as both a client device and an ap. It has a nice admin > interface, better than most I've seen.
Agreed that the interface is really nice. They also have LED signal strength meters which assist with alignment when used as a client device.
-- Michael Weinberg President Personal Telco Project, Inc.
|
