Truck and Barter: Dayton goes WiFi

The city of Dayton, Ohio, now has a wifi "hot spot" all over downtown:

You can now surf the Internet for free in Downtown Dayton.
Your wireless computer, P.D.A., or cell phone can now surf the Internet for free if it's Wi-Fi equipped.

The free service is available within one square mile around downtown.

The city will pay about $5,000 a year for it, but most of the cost is paid for by the advertisers.

Well, I suppose we'll get to see what works and what doesn't. My first guess is that the $5K a year the city "pays" now will skyrocket before long. Either the idea will grab so many people the system can't handle the load (imagine all those businesses deciding the skip paying for private broadband access for a couple of years, then trying to run webcasts through the same line every one at every fast food joint is trying to use to download the new Nelly single) and the city will be on the hook to expand it even more, or, and I think more likely, it will experience the same result as wifi spots in other downtown locals that see highly variable traffic that doesn't exhibit much of a demand, meaning that the advertisers may not realize a benefit for what they've paid out. In fact, I don't see the argument that swayed these "advertisers". In the case of heavy demand beyond just the local kids surfing blogs and Friendset, I'm not sure how patient people would be with a heavy does of advertising. Personally, I'd pay to get a clean line and avoid having even more ads pouring at me. If the demand isn't heavy, who's going to see the advertising?

From the city's plan, it looks as though the advertising comes in the form of branded pages (such as log-on, and possibly frames?). Who pays attention to those, I'm not sure. And I'd predict a hack to be out in about 24 hours. The big plus I do see for the advertisers, however, is that the general audience is so oblivious to protecting computers from viruses and intrusion, that it won't dawn on people that without pricey software (or expert users versed in good open source stuff) this is the electronic version of licking the floor in a public restroom.

Comments

Buzzcut wrote:

I don't get the last comment. Are you saying that you can get viruses from Wi-fi?

I am not aware of any Wi-Fi specific viruses (i.e. ones that specifically target Wi-Fi users. Supposedly this can be done over Bluetooth, although I am not aware of any "real" viruses that do so.)

I've got to think that there is a license of some sort that (theoretically) prevents businesses from using the network. There is probably also a data limit, so that heavy users are tossed off the network.

Finally, what did it take to set this up? Was it just a bunch of wireless routers? At $20 a pop, that's 250 routers. That can probably support 2000 simultaneous users.

-- April 4, 2005 3:59 PM ∞

Ian wrote:

Buzz,

It's not that you get viruses FROM wifi -- rather, wifi is simply a way to connect computers through potentially unsecure networks. The level of protection used by most coffeeshops with wifi hotspots falls well below what a moderately skilled and motivated hacker would term "annoying". People wandering around downtown might not realize that there is a difference between security on your home network and security on your computer. Additionally, open networks and computers may serve as viable "vectors" for viruses and hackers. Using your work computer while at downtown hotel doesn't provide the same security as using your computer at work.

As for the cost of the system -- it takes quite a bit more than just a few routers. It would take a series of wireless access points that do more than just beam your internet signal around. Part of this is the process of doing authentication and user-validation. Since the companies are driving advertising through delivery of the broadband, there would have to be a great deal of manipulating IP addresses that I don't think your standard home wireless router is capable of (which is why buying an actual Wireless Access Point from Best Buy or wherever is more expensive). That is, each time you log on the system has to know that you're a new user that needs to have the advertising delivered.

I'm not as up on the tech as I really ought to be. But think of it in terms of a contradiction: if the cost of extending wireless were simply that of mounting a few thousand more routers/repeaters, only this time requiring people to pay for a user sign-on, then why haven't the internet companies already done so speculatively? They get great deals from companies like Motorola for routers in vast quantities, hook them up across the city, and (under these assumptions), you just start charging $19.95 a month to everyone who calls you up. Even if the router cost the internet company twice your price, they would cover the installation costs in a matter of months. Yet they haven't done so.

All this on top of what it's going to cost in personnel to deal with service calls, people stealing the access points when they can find them, and more.

-- April 4, 2005 10:58 PM ∞

Buzzcut wrote:

I take your point about the user authentication process. These WAPs need to be slightly more sophisticated than my Netgear router.

FYI, though, a wireless router is just a wired router with a wireless access point grafter on. WAPs can actually be cheaper than routers.

Not that I'm an expert (but I AM a smart guy!), but a couple of Linux servers are all that is probably needed to do the user authentication stuff, as well as the advertising serving. The capital cost is low, although the ongoing cost of administration might be significant. Maybe they outsource that to India!

The only thing that I'm missing is the cost of wiring the access points together. If I were doing the system design, I'd go to the top of the highest point in Dayton, put a bunch of WAPs up there with really high gain, highly directional antennas, and just blanket the area from that one point. These antennas are cheap (Google "yagi antenna 2.4Ghz dBa" to see). You could do a pretty decent job of coverage over a relatively densely populated area like a downtown. The cost would be close to nothing (actually, $5000 is close to nothing!).

Your question as to why, if it is so cheap and easy to do, no one is doing it, is a good one. I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of paying for everything per month. I pay my cellphone per month. I pay for cable per month. I pay for DSL. I pay for XM. I pay for Tivo. I pay for Napster. How many other $20 per month charges can I afford? And how much am I going to use the hotspots?

This is why I think that Verizon and their EV-DO has a much better business model than, say, Boingo. EV-DO costs a lot more, but it is much more pervasive that Wi-Fi. Anywhere you can get a cellphone signal, you can get EV-DO, and verizon's service is almost as good as DSL.

And my company is much more likely to go for EV-DO than Boingo, I can guarantee!

-- April 5, 2005 10:04 AM ∞

Bob wrote:

Whatis the status of Dayton WiFi as of 2-1-006?

-- February 5, 2006 2:01 PM ∞

wow power leveling wrote:

thanks

-- May 20, 2009 9:17 PM ∞

Truck and Barter

Dayton goes WiFi

Comments

Post a comment

TrackBack