I've seen several guides on the internet that offer tips for improving Wi-Fi performance. Some may be as simple as building a directional antenna out of tin cans. In one they used an old Primestar dish. It's not like it was good for anything else these days.
Also I went to high school in Hermiston. The biggest difference is Hermiston is flat. It's in the bottom of the Columbia Basin. Wi-Fi is line of site, so a few omni-directional antennas can cover Hermiston quite nicely. Portland is all hills and city. It makes things much more complicated.

Could this be a case of "you get what you (don't) pay for"? Maybe this explains why Comcast did not complain all that loudly when the "free" network was being proposed.

Isn't this a Sten project? That explains it all.

Thanks JK

Can somebody get and post the contract for this thing? That's what it will come down to. In the meantime, everybody who wants this thing needs to email City Hall and tell them we want ours to work as well as Hermiston's.

Socialism fails. Again.

I never understood why Portland didn't go with the Google/Earthlink free WiFi proposal, which, unlike MetroFi, doesn't force an ad on top of your browser. At least established companies like Google and Earthlink have more of a reputation to uphold.

If Portland's agreement with MetroFi requires any future City of Portland (CoP) purchase of WiFi service to be directed to MetroFi (or if it precludes competing WiFi providers from gaining the same right of ways at the same price) they have effectively awarded a monopoly to MetroFi.

When governments use their municipal authority to compete with private enterprise or to dictate which market participants will succeed and which will fail, that is correctly defined as Socialism. To wit, if Comcast has to pay for their right-of-ways, but Metro-Fi was awarded their right-of-way without payment, then MetroFi has been given an unfair advantage by the CoP. Predatory pricing ("free") wouldn't be possible if Metro-Fi were required to pay the same franchise/right-of-way fees as Comcast. In fact, Metro-Fi isn't offering "free" service at all: they are merely syndicating eyeballs and selling them to advertisers in much the same way as broadcast radio or TV always have. What's the difference? The CoP hasn't promised to direct all CoP advertising to KGW, or provided reserved parking spaces all over town to KXL radio (furiously ticketing all the others for double-parking in front of the courthouse).

When government awards a monopoly franchise(or directs lucrative municipal contracts to a single provider), they undermine the most basic tenet of free market competition: namely, the government shouldn't set prices. Quoting Wikipedia on Free Markets:

the opposite extreme to the free market economy is the command economy, where decisions regarding production, distribution, and pricing are a matter of governmental control. In other words, a free market economy is "an economic system in which individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions.

Here's an excellent opinion piece from the Heartland Institute on the subject.

This is simply Sten's latest grenade-over-the-wall to remind the telecom, utility, and cable franchisees that he can put the screws to them despite having his head handed to him on a plate (repeatedly) by the courts and the PUC.

According to Mister Tee, "When governments use their...authority...to dictate which market participants will succeed and which will fail, that is correctly defined as Socialism."

So, let's see: when Uncle Sam doles out tens of billions to Boeing, General Electric, McDonnell Douglas (or whatever it's called now)--after quasi-competitive bidding that is rigged to make sure all the competitors get some share of the taxpayers' dollars--that's socialism, right, Mister Tee? Or is it only socialism when it involves something other than defense (sic) contractors?

If you want to buy a 747 or equivalent, you have two choices: Boeing or Airbus. Would you actually prefer we spend DoD acquisition budgets in France? G.E. or Rolls Royse engines: pick only one.

Lockeed/McDonnell/General Dynamics/Boeing: all very specialized companies who build highly engineered products. Who else could the government buy the next generation of military aircraft from?

G.E. is the third largest company in the country: they could lose all of their Federal business tomorrow, and it would hurt them about as much as a Portland boycott of Taco Bell restaurants would hurt YUM. G.E. is as big as they are because they are continuously trying to improve their people, their products, their service, and their profits. Profits are a good thing.

If the City of Portland had hired Microsoft (instead of MetroFi) to manage our WiFi rollout, it would still be Socialism. But at least it would have been highly competent Socialism.

Instead, they picked a start-up with limited capital and a short track record, and were still busy patting themselves on the back when the LARGEST MONOPOLY IN THE WORLD swooped in to save Metro-Fi from likely insolvency.

Ironic, don't you think.

A monopoly?!

I can walk into a bajillion different coffee shops in Portland and get myself some free wireless love.

Sure, maybe the city is precluded from going to anyone else for service ... but does that matter? The fact that Metro-Fi offers free service is proof enough that it has to compete with all other networks covering sections of town.

The problem with so many analyses of markets (and why we see so many ridiculous and unproductive debates on the topic) is that markets are rarely defined or framed properly. They are vague animals to say the least.

The market does not begin and end with the City of Portland.

JK: Isn't this a Sten project...

JK: Get your facts straight (once again)..."Unwire Portland began as an outgrowth of the Mayor’s 2003 Blue Ribbon Committee on Economic Development." It had full council support. One of Sten's aides did help with the project, but Saltzman's office brought it to fruition.

Thanks.

Marshall Runkel (the former Stennie who hit the revolving door so hard it's still spinning) is now working for "One-Economy.com" a nonprofit whose stated objective is to Socialize Broadband and promote Nanny Government via their beehive.org web portal: he's the "Director of Municipal Initiatives"

MetroFi is one of the FEW corporate beneficiaries of Socialized Broadband, so you can bet they offered a ringing endorsement when Citizen Runkel went job hunting at One-Economy.

From One-Economy.com:

One Economy is a multi-national nonprofit organization that brings broadband to the homes of low-income people and provides a multilingual web portal called The Beehive (www.thebeehive. org). Our mission is to maximize the potential of technology to help low- income people improve their lives and enter the economic mainstream. The Beehive provides people with information and services ranging from education and health to employment. To date more than 9 million people have used the Beehive, 20% of whom accessed the content in Spanish, and over 200,000 low-income people have broadband at home through the work of One Economy.

"Sigh!" It's like debating a rock.

Contracts rarely stipulate they are conveying monopoly powers. It just looks bad.

There was a handshake understanding that future CoP purchases of Wi-Fi service would be predicated on comprehensive coverage.

If the RFP (request for proposal) stipulates comprehensive city-wide coverage is a necessary qualification for bidding, and they've only awarded right of ways to a single bidder...Voila, the fix is in.

Sure, Comcast is welcome to submit a proposal if they can figure out a way to blanket the city with their existing right-of-ways. Good luck, fellas: Erik is pulling for you.

OK, I think I finally got it, Mister Tee.

It ain't "socialism" (meaning it is something you approve of) as long as it's a government initiative you approve of or for which you can concoct an excuse.

It is socialism if it's a government initiative you do not approve of.

I especially like your rationalization about General Electric: GE is just too important and too big to not steer it lucrative government contracts. But, you assure us, this is not socialism because GE is a profit-making venture.

In the final analysis, the right wing loves socialism as long as it's socialism of two sorts:

i) Government guarantees delivered to powerful private companies. These you applaud until your hands turn red. ii) Government subsidies to losing private ventures, or badly designed calls for proposals such as the one for Wi-Fi. You love this sort of "lemon socialism" because it provides you with a handy excuse to shout about how bad "socialism" is, and distract everyone from the fact that those subsidies to GE and the like consume vastly more taxpayer dolalrs than these "lemons".

Heya Mister Tee. Always a slog, ain't it?

Anyways, name the counties in the world with the strongest economies, lowest crime rate and healthiest citizens.

Scandanavia!

Highest taxes in the world and the happiest, healthiest, most employed people around. Ever been there?

Nah, you believe, like my big sister, in seeing America first. Of course, she's like 70 years old and hasn't been past Walla Walla, but it's the thought that counts!

Mister Tee-

Now, I am not from Portland, and am unfamiliar with the relationship and contract between the city and this company, but when you start quoting Wickipedia, you are in trouble... especially when discussing an academia subject like economics. It is like starting a research paper with “...according to Webster’s...” Your little "Socialist" argument flies out the window when you start talking about public utilities.

Like it or not, this is a public utility, which means that it is a natural monopoly (i.e., there are economies of scale, and it is a decreasing cost industry). The assertion is that only one firm is needed to supply a given product in the market because it is less efficient and more costly to society to allow more firms into the industry. This is similar to what we have here (you can only install so many "nodes," or whatever the signal transmitting devices. After that, they are “useless”). From this point, the utility only needs to be publically regulated (or a similar equivalent) to ensure the provider is making a reasonable profit based on their costs, while not exceeding these costs greatly.

This contention is upheld both in theory and practice, with a majority of the empirical literature supporting the above conclusion. Now, there are some troubles with the telecommunication industry, as it is a very complex web of buying and selling regional, national, and international rights to use lines that are currently in place. It is basically a massive headache.

However, in this instance, WiFi service such as this is just emerging, and, as said above, can actually be done more efficiently than private companies could do. Give it some time to get the tweaks worked out. Common sense will also come into play here. Clearly, $50 a month or more for Comcast is much less efficient and more costly than free service which, in the long run, will provide a quality product.

Pwnd

Socialism fails. Again.

Hm, have you ever tried to get Internet access in China? It is totally free dialup through the country. Pretty handy when traveling. And no doubt handy to the Chinese.

Scrappy:

I read your post twice. Thanks for the belly laugh. It's called "wikipedia" (no "c"). You should Coocle it.

My favorite turn of a phrase: "An academia subject like economics. Uh-huh.

1. Metro Fi is NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY. MetroFi is a FOR PROFIT California Corporation backed by three VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS and a partnership with MICROSOFT. It's also worth noting that the founders of MetroFi raised $2 billion at Covad before filing for bankruptcy protection in 2001.

2. WiFi service is not a natural monopoly: Starbucks, PTPs, and most Hotels (that offer WiFi) demonstrate that demand will elicit supply. It's only a monopoly if the city awards exclusive right-of-ways to a SINGLE PROVIDER and commits to directing all municipal purchases to that "preferred provider".

3. It is Socialism because the municipal government is setting the price and doing so in a predatory manner that will discourage competition (for a while).

4. "The utility only needs to be publically (sic) regulated to ensure the provider is making a reasonable profit based on their costs, while not exceeding these costs greatly." You should remind Erik Sten of this fact, so that he'll let the PUC do their job.

5. This contention is upheld both in theory and practice, with a majority of the empirical literature supporting the above conclusion. Show me one empirical study (a link would be fine) that suggest municipal WiFi is a natural monopoly. When long distance telephone service was regulated, I was paying 35 cents per minute to call Medford, and 25 cents per minute to call California. Guess what I'm paying now (post deregulation): $22/month with unlimited domestic long distance. The market works.

6. Comprehensive city-wide WiFi service is in it's infancy, but the current technology is likely to be supplanted by something better in the next few years. A "free" service is unlikely to provide the cash flow to support future capital expenditures.

WiFi's monopoly will last until a disruptive WiFi alternative/improvement supplants it, or MetroFi sells their aging infrastructure to the City for more than it's worth (likely in the wake of their Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing).

Peter Bray: tell me you don't need a lecture on net freedom in China. It's free so they can exercise state control. Coocle it.

Sid: The myth of Scandinavia-as-Socialist-Utopia has been completely debunked. Here's a convenient link from a respected PhD in Belgium.

It's also not a country, but three countries (three very small, culturally homogeneous countries), each with their own tax code, legal framework, etc. If you want to cherry pick the globe looking for low unemployment and high per capita GDP, then I'll meet your Scandinavia, and raise you by San Marino, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein. Guess what: they all have lower taxes and higher everything else than your "Scandanavia"...So I win, right?

Better yet, compare Cuba to Chile. Or Brazil to Nigeria. I win again.

I hope this is as much fun for you guys as it is for me.

WiFi will cause the soft tissue cancer rates to rise dramaticly.

It is always a difficult proposition to lead the nation in such efforts and growing pains are part of the process. Just a couple of comments by way of edification-

-This network is privately owned and constructed by metrofi, but provides "open access" to other service providers who wish to compete. You will soon see other local providers when the network is built out. -This network is not currently built out, it will be refined and expanded over the next year based on testing and input from users. Since we are the first city in the United States to embark on such a citywide effort (SF and Philly have stalled), coverage issues will arise much as they did in the infancy of cellular phones and television. - Metrofi depends on advertising revenue, which is in turn dependent on users getting a connection and logging on. The core of their business plan is for users to connect, a pretty good incentive for them to work out connectivity issues. -As pointed out in an earlier posting, Hermiston and Portland is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison considering topography, infrastructure and population. Our network might take a little longer for it to be as comprehensive due to those considerations.

I have to admit that I am a pretty impatient person (like many), but I will need to employ that virtue with confidence that the free city-wide wifi service will soon be ubiquitous.

Cheers

Here's another refutation of "Muniopolies"

I'm curious who the "city-wide" wifi will really benefit.

I can't imagine homeless people lugging their laptops around on the streets, checking up on the latest sport scores or the Dow Jones Average.

And I can't imagine the working poor who have barely enough money to subsist, plunking down some serious cash for a laptop with a wifi card.

Instead of doing this, if the city or some advocacy group is serious about providing broadband for citizens that can't afford it, have the major providers, ie. Comcast, Qwest, Verizon, charge a "universal access fee" similar to a phone landline and subsidize broadband for the poor.

DSL or cable is much more stable and faster than wi-fi.

Klong: free city sponsored WiFi will benefit the reelection of every Commissioner who seeks higher political office.

This is the political equivalent of a "gimme"...Doesn't cost anything (except the WiFi card and the booster), everybody wins (screw Comcast), and Portland ("Weird") is on the cutting edge of something the Creative Class can enjoy every time they want to SURF-THE-WEB-WITHOUT-BUYING-A-LATTE!

It's a win/win...What are you all complaining about?

Did I mention it will make City Government even more efficient? Why, it could even improve the management of the physical plant budget over at the Parks Department. No more buildings rotting into the ground because their roofs weren't maintained. GO WiFi.

Facts JK:JK: Isn't this a Sten project...

JK: Get your facts straight (once again)... JK: That's why I posted is as a question. Learn to read. (once again)

JK: That's why I posted is (sic) as a question. Learn to read. (once again)

Facts: JK, you appear to be a highly refined troll. What you wrote is "Isn't this a Sten project? That would explain it all."

Your statement would appear to be a rhetorical question. You really didn't know? Maybe you should learn how to use Google. Your disingenious twisting of facts is getting tiring.

I love this discussion of socialism and natural monopolies.

Just remember, when Uncle Sam carefully doles out multi-billions to defense (sic) contractors and makes sure that they all stay in business, it ain't socialism.

When state governments come groveling at the doors of CEOs, offering all sorts of incentives and tax abatements if pretty please they'll relocate their factory, it ain't socialism.

But when the city of Portland tries to cut a deal for a city-wide WiFi provider, it's that damnable socialism rearing it's ugly head.

Lin Qiao:

I presume you abhor living in the protective shadow of the strongest military power in the history of humankind. It is actually a source of much comfort (and no small amount of pride) to many Americans. This is especially true for those who have served, or have friends and family who sacrificed life and limb in service to our country. Ask a Pearl Harbor survivor (preferably a Navy Veteran) what it feels like to be outgunned, budget starved, and unprepared when war breaks out: they have strong opinions on the topic.

American soldiers deserve the best equipment, munitions, and military technology that money can buy. While there are exceptions -- the $1,600 hammer, or the $10,000 toilet (which actually wasn't so outrageous when you consider it was designed especially for the Space Shuttle) -- most defense contractors are eager to provide the best quality and delivery possible, and recognize that the lives of our soldiers may hang in the balance. Yes, they do make a profit, some even make profits which seem excessive to my way of thinking. But that doesn't make them monopolists, or criminals. If it costs $275 million/plane to ensure we own the air above any future combat zone, so be it. It's a small price to pay to live in the greatest country on Earth, and preserve our freedom.

Back to the WiFi topic: there is no logical basis to suggest the poor/indigent/homeless/disenfranchised will gain access to MetroFi's cloud. Not unless the City partners with Dell or FreeGeek and starts handing out free WiFi enabled laptops (the desktops would be too big for a backpack or shopping cart). If they weren't motivated by ordinary p/c inclusionary flim flam, then we have to ask why government would seek to provide a service that is readily available from the private sector.

The political motivation/benefit is clear: this is just another gift to the middle/creative class, courtesy of City Hall and everybody who would appreciate your vote in November. Plus, they get to piss off Comcast, which is a source of great entertainment at City Hall.

On a separate topic: why are you typing the word "defense" with the "(sic)" notation. Defense is the correct spelling, while the word "defence" is a much less common British variation of the word defense.

Remember when some folks and members of Congress peed their pants over the "creeping socialism" of the Tennessee Valley Authority?

If the TVA is a meaningful precedent, you won't - nay, can't - beat the MetroFi project down by whacking it with the dull sledgehammer of socialist pejoratives.

Next strategy, please.

Tee, Lin Qiao is ironizing defense.

It's an effin FREE wireless network for Portland. It's a cool thing to have and it's good for Portland that we are at least trying to make it work. But you all have some serious issues if you are trippin over this. Chill out, take a look in the mirror and start spending some time on either having fun or making the world better.

Peace.

Yo Mister Tee, I cannot possibly match you for goofy "patriotic" prose, and I'm not going to get into it with you about wasteful defense (sic) spending, although I do really like the way you make excuses for this waste (not mentioned the fraud and abuse that the Great Prevaricator was so fond of blathering about) with silly stuff about Pearl Harbor.

Yep, I know if I question the $10K toilet seats, then the terrorists will have won.

No, I'm still marvelling at the way and other so-called conservatives start frothing at the mouth about "socialism" whenever any government proposes some sort of small program that might benefit a wide range of people, but when governments start handing out billions to a tiny number of the wealthy and powerful, you not only don't see any "socialism", you see only good.

Facts Your disingenious twisting of facts is getting tiring. JK: So is yours. Take a hike twit.

Goodby JK

I must acknowledge in advance that I am conflating "free" (as in, no payment required) with "freedom" (the quality or state of being free). They are similar words with very distinct meanings. In fact, "Free" is one of the most flexible words in the English language, as evidenced by the 15 definitions offered by Merriam Webster. Main Entry: Free Pronunciation: 'frE Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): fre·er; fre·est Etymology: Middle English, from Old English frEo; akin to Old High German frI free, Welsh rhydd, Sanskrit priya own, dear 1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty "free citizens" c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another 2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer "free actions" c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously 3 a : relieved from or lacking something and especially something unpleasant or burdensome "free from pain" "a speech free of political rhetoric" -- often used in combination "error-free" b : not bound, confined, or detained by force 4 a : having no trade restrictions b : not subject to government regulation c of foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control 5 a : having no obligations (as to work) or commitments "I'll be free this evening" b : not taken up with commitments or obligations "a free evening" 6 : having a scope not restricted by qualification "a free variable" 7 a : not obstructed, restricted, or impeded "free to leave" b : not being used or occupied <waved with="" his="" free="" hand=""> c : not hampered or restricted in its normal operation 8 a : not fastened "the free end of the rope" b : not confined to a particular position or place "in twelve-tone music, no note is wholly free" c : capable of moving or turning in any direction "a free particle" d : performed without apparatus "free tumbling" e : done with artificial aids (as pitons) used only for protection against falling and not for support "a free climb" 9 a : not parsimonious "free spending" b : OUTSPOKEN c : availing oneself of something without stint d : FRANK, OPEN e : overly familiar or forward in action or attitude f : LICENTIOUS 10 : not costing or charging anything 11 a (1) : not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with something else : SEPARATE "a free surface of a bodily part" (2) : FREESTANDING "a free column" b : chemically uncombined "free oxygen" "free acids" c : not permanently attached but able to move about "a free electron in a metal" d : capable of being used alone as a meaningful linguistic form "the word hats is a free form" 12 a : not literal or exact "free translation" b : not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms "free skating" 13 : FAVORABLE -- used of a wind blowing from a direction more than six points from dead ahead 14 : not allowing slavery 15 : open to all comers

Ironically, many liberals hate free television ("kill your TV") and mistakenly believe the Constitution enshrines their freedom FROM religion (rather than the freedom of religion, and a prohibition on the establishment of any specific state religion).

Despite the conveyance of "free money for schools", many liberals oppose the sale of branded soft drink products in public schools. They disdain the "free money for college" pitch offered by military recruiters, but they embrace the distribution of free condoms, needles, and abortions. Teen sex, pregnancy terminations, and injecting heroin are all tolerated, but a voting majority of liberal parents fight to keep Coke, Pepsi, and the U.S. Marine Corps out of our public schools. Does this make sense?

Why do liberals support the ubiquity of free WiFi, but oppose the ubiquity of free markets and free people to determine the course of events?

Doretta et al Money for nothing and your chicks for free:

I was simply responding to the many published claims that "free WiFi" represents the democratization of information, which will be of the greatest benefit to those of modest means. Anytime I hear a liberal talk about how much their pet project will benefit THE POOR, my bullshit meter starts popping like a Geiger Counter in Iran.

Some (including S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsome) have even suggested that free WiFi should be considered a basic human right.

Is it just me, or is this thread getting tired?

My original point is why wi-fi? Why not partially subsidized or free broadband for people with low incomes? We already have programs for gas, electricity, and landlines (phone). As Jeff Alworth has written, he can't get a wi-fi connection. Neither can I. Are the only people who are going to get it the ones that live downtown or in the Pearl? That doesn't sound like an underprivileged population to me (except for the homeless who can't afford laptops).

Damn, Tee ... talk about loading the deck.

Klong, in reply to your question:

The City would face certain legal challenge if they entered a broadcasting or communication spectrum that is already regulated at the Federal level (like broadband cable, AM Radio, or DSL), and established a muniopoly to compete with Comcast, KXL, or Qwest by providing the same service free of charge. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems likely that a "people's network" of free telephone or DSL service would be seen as unfair competition with private enterprise (that lacks the ability to pay operating expenses with tax revenue).

The WiFi spectrum (the radio frequencies used for WiFi transmission) must meet Federal transmission guidlines (they must stay within their spectrum), but they are not subject to the Federal licensing criteria that applies to commercial broadcasters or telecom providers.

From Wikipedia:

Except for 802.11a, which operates at 5 GHz, Wi-Fi uses the spectrum near 2.4 GHz, which is standardized and unlicensed by international agreement, although the exact frequency allocations vary slightly in different parts of the world, as does maximum permitted power. However, channel numbers are standardized by frequency throughout the world, so authorized frequencies can be identified by channel numbers.

Name calling, rather than substantive debate, is silly. Nevertheless, I'm glad I got under somebody's skin: if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention.

Here's a better example of inane (Thesis 91 from the Cluetrain Manifesto)

Our allegiance is to ourselves—our friends, our new allies and acquaintances, even our sparring partners. Companies that have no part in this [internetworked] world, also have no future.

I wonder how OPEC or ARAMCO would receive that message?

per Mister Tee: Anytime I hear a liberal talk about how much their pet project will benefit THE POOR, my bullshit meter starts popping like a Geiger Counter in Iran.

Geiger counter in Iran? Are we the American people using depleted uranium rounds there now, too?

As for bullshit meters, mine starts popping when I ask Mister Tee why he's so fond of guvmint handouts to defense (sic) contractors, and he replies with some pseudo-patriotic blather about Pearl Harbor and how US soldiers deserve nothing but the best. Also, when I hear our fearless leaders talking about stuff like "spreading democracy".

As for WiFi, frankly, I don't know what's the best way to make it available to the most people at a reasonable price. Maybe the MetroFi idea is a bad one. The problem with Mister Tee is that he treats the words "free market" as having some sort of magical power, and denies there is any legitimate function of government except war-making. I dunno, maybe we can give all the libertarian ideologues a state where they can make Ayn Rand required reading in the schools and run the fascinating social experiment they've all been wanting to run.

There was a handshake understanding

Only an idiot makes business decisions based on a "handshake understanding" with elected officials who may or may not be have the power to fulfill their end of the bargain in a couple years. One of the amusing things about the "free market" conservatives is how often they seem to have little understanding of either business or the market.

Personal Telco has nodes that do work. But has anyone asked them how many were attempted that never did? Anyone who has a wireless in their home would have expected that there were going to be dead spots for a very long time.

The myth of Scandinavia-as-Socialist-Utopia has been completely debunked. Here's a convenient link from a respected PhD in Belgium.

That link "completely" debunks nothing, unless you fail to read it critically.

Wondering about Personal Telco as mentioned by Ross Williams in posting above....what have people's experience with it been? I live within the Personal Telco "umbrella" centered on the Hollywood District branch library, but gave up when I found the connections extraordinarily slow.

Tee,

How true.

Paying attention to you is likely to piss off many, many people.

lin qiao -

I had pretty good experience with them in the various coffee shops, but in my experience a wireless connection's speed drops off pretty dramatically as the signal weakens. So unless you are close, or there is very little interference, you aren't going to get very good performance. I am not sure how much your own wireless card has an impact on reception.

Rob:

You correctly noted my passion for my views. I guess that makes me the only one?

Perhaps if I were the Western Regional V.P. at One Economy Corp, I might also believe the high cost of broadband prevents low-income people from improving their economic opportunity.

Not having a vested interest in municipal broadband, I believe that high-speed internet access ranks near the bottom decile of things-that-low-income-people-can't-live-without. But I'm still paying for dial-up, so what do I know. I probably could have become a millionaire (or a progressive Democrat anyway) if I had WiFi. Too bad. So sad.

I am glad One-Economy.Com has figured out a way to monetize low-income eyeballs, not to mention all those underutilized anti-poverty dollars that municipal bureaucrats need to spend in more (ahem) creative ways.

I do have two questions: have you ever had a job outside of government and/or the non-profit sector? How does One Economy Corporation pay all those staff/director salaries if you don't make a profit?

It works! I have one and use it in Salem.

<h2>http://www.cantenna.com/</h2>