said by wifi4milez :

While this type of implementation is certainly better than most, I still question if it was the best way to spend the cities money. My main issue is that wifi has a very limited range, and requires multiple access points to work properly. I have a hard time believing that this network covers the entire 555 square mile area, especially for such a "low" cost.

On the other hand, I can almost guarantee that the whole 555 square mile area is covered by "cellular" service, and likely 3G at that. Would a better solution have been for each municipal worker to be issued a laptop card instead? The city could simply encrypt the traffic using a VPN back their central servers, and the infrastructure (cell towers) is already in place. I suspect that they could have worked out a much better deal with a wireless provider, AND they wouldnt be responsible for maintenance of the outside plant and so forth.

The bottom line is that I think the wifi system will be useless unless the officer/operations worker/etc. is sitting right underneath one of the access points. My feeling is this is $5M down the tubes, and take a guess who paid for it!...........

said by NOCMan :

They apparently snuck in some big brother as well.

said by MarkyD :

I disagree with a number of your statements. As someone with first-hand knowledge of how this system is set up, I can tell you the coverage is VERY good. Bandwidth is adequate in almost all areas for them to do what they need to do.
Aircards for everyone would prove to be very costly in the long term...the monthly recurring cost alone would be brutal. This network can be maintained with a minimal amount of administrative effort and tax dollars.

said by wifi4milez :

While this type of implementation is certainly better than most, I still question if it was the best way to spend the cities money. My main issue is that wifi has a very limited range, and requires multiple access points to work properly. I have a hard time believing that this network covers the entire 555 square mile area, especially for such a "low" cost.

On the other hand, I can almost guarantee that the whole 555 square mile area is covered by "cellular" service, and likely 3G at that. Would a better solution have been for each municipal worker to be issued a laptop card instead? The city could simply encrypt the traffic using a VPN back their central servers, and the infrastructure (cell towers) is already in place. I suspect that they could have worked out a much better deal with a wireless provider, AND they wouldnt be responsible for maintenance of the outside plant and so forth.

said by wifi4milez :

Lets assume that in this case it would be 15%. This means the cost per user (per month) would be $33.99. Multiply that by the number of users (1767) and you get $60,062 per month. The $5 million that the city spent on their own network (which they have to constantly maintain and upgrade!) would provide 83 years of managed service from Sprint!

said by KrK :

That's not 83 years. It's 83 months.

said by KrK :

That's not 83 years. It's 83 months.

said by wifi4milez :

I think cities in general are not set up to be service providers. They certainly needed to hire additional people to manage this new network, and as things get more complex that will continue. There is something to be said for outsourcing technology, especially since it puts the onus of keeping the technology current on the vendor instead of the taxpayers.

said by Jodokast96 :

Glad someone here knows how to count.

said by KrK :

As to an outside vendor having to bear the costs of maintenance, upgrades, expansion, this is all true points... but a business doesn't work for free. These costs would be passed back to the city in the form of rate increases or usage charges.... they certainly aren't going to just do it for free....