MetroFi's networks for sale...
Michael Weinberg
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008322.html
and
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.
Tom Higgins
As if on cue:
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008322.html
Michael Weinberg
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/portland_wifi_network_to_be_so.html
Choice excerpt:
"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
<mic...@personaltelco.net> wrote:
Michael
Michael Weinberg wrote:
> Mike Rogoway got some more details from the city:
> http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/portland_wifi_network_to_be_so.html
>
> 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
--
Michael
Michael Weinberg wrote:
> Well put. I'll do it.
Great. Now for real questions.
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.
Don Park
<mic...@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.
Don
Tom Higgins
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?
Questins questions.
-tomhiggins
Aaron Baer
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Michael Weinberg
<mic...@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.
----
Aaron Baer
aa...@slyness.org
http://aaron.slyness.org/
Don Park
> If?
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Don Park <do...@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
Gary
> 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.
Then resell it on eBay at a discounted price and retract the bid at the
last minute?
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/print_story.php?story_id=26238
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?
-Gary
Sam Churchill
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.
Sincerely,
Chuck Haas
President & CEO
Caleb Phillips
> 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?
--
Caleb Phillips
Tyler Booth
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?
Tyler Booth // President ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002
921 SW Washington St, Suite 224
Portland OR 97205
Michael Weinberg
>
> 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.
Michael
Michael Weinberg
<cphi...@smallwhitecube.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
Caleb Phillips
> 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.
--
Caleb Phillips
Gary
> 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
-Gary
Michael Weinberg
Indeed, the Nanostations and Powerstations are both very cool and
powerful devices.
Michael
Russell Senior
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
rus...@personaltelco.net
Michael Weinberg
<rus...@personaltelco.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Weinberg <mic...@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.