[LUAU] Re: [AWN] Wi-Fi traffic jam in Hawaii

[Jim Thompson]

On May 30, 2005, at 2:46 AM, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:

> Maybe Jim Thompson should wander over to Waikiki and help these  
> guys out...

Hmm.  Thanks Jon, but I doubt, (curmudgeon that I am) they'd welcome  
my participation.

>
> Group tries to unsnarl Wi-Fi traffic jam
>
> Stewart Yerton
> Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
> May 30, 2005
>
> At the posh Halekulani Hotel in Waikiki, guests receive a host of  
> niceties: cotton robes, fancy toiletries and a 27-inch flat-screen  
> television.

with the view out the window being what it is, who wants to watch TV?

> But there's one amenity at the Halekulani that's getting  
> interference from the outside world: the hotel's wireless Internet  
> service.
>
> Rod Tateyama, the Halekulani's information technology manager, said  
> the hotel had no problems when it set up its Wi-Fi system for  
> guests several years ago.
>
> But as other properties have set up systems and firms compete to  
> offer Wi-Fi service for everyone from banks to coffee shops, the  
> result is a traffic jam on the airwaves.
>
> "It is affecting us," he said, Tateyama said, complaining that  
> other Wi-Fi bands are "bleeding in" to the property and slowing  
> access.

Hmm, I doubt its "slowing access", though it may be causing  
retransmits.   In fact, the problem could be that the original design  
was flawed,
and increasing usage merely shows the flaws.   I can't tell, of  
course, since I haven't looked at the Halekulani's deployment.

BTW Rod, I'm more than willing to take a look "for free".

> In the bustling, mostly unregulated world of the wireless Internet,  
> Waikiki is turning into Wi-Fi-kiki, with more users competing for  
> access that can be slow, unreliable, confusing, overlapping or  
> nonexistent.
>
> "It's not smart deployment. It's not what I'd like to see ideally  
> down there," said Nam Vu, chief technology officer of ShakaNet  
> Inc., which provides Internet kiosks and Wi-Fi service throughout  
> Honolulu.

ShakaNet is a for-pay provider.    As I've explained many times, in  
many places, since before my days at Vivato, "You can't provide a  
service in unlicensed spectrum" (sometimes stated as, "You can't  
provide a service in an uncontrolled interference environment.")

> "But there's a time period in which everything's going to be this  
> way until everyone says, 'OK, let's sit down and figure out a way  
> to do this better.' "

Hopefully, someone who actually understands the issues at both the RF  
and MAC layer will be present, or we'll hear a lot about "3 non- 
overlapping channels", and no solution will take form.   Given my  
wanderings around the community here, not even the (now ex) guys at  
Firetide knew much about 802.11, treating it as a simple and  
inexpensive "wireless Ethernet" connection, when, in fact, it isn't.

> Now a coalition of business leaders is hoping to do just that.  
> Facing increasing expectations from visitors accustomed to  
> accessing the Internet from almost anywhere, the group hopes to  
> bring order to the chaos.

Note the lack of community wireless involvement.  Hmm.

> Known as the Hawaii Wireless Council, the organization wants to  
> untangle the knot of business and technical issues hindering the  
> development of a seamless Wi-Fi system stretching from Honolulu  
> International Airport to Diamond Head.
>
> The Hawaii Wireless Council will be modeled loosely on the Hawaii  
> Life Sciences Council, a nonprofit group spun out of Enterprise  
> Honolulu, a local economic development organization, said John  
> Strom, Enterprise Honolulu's director of business development and  
> technology.
>
> The Hawaii Life Sciences Council includes representatives of the  
> University of Hawaii, Hawaii health-care providers and private  
> industry. The wireless council would assemble a similar assortment  
> of people involved in the industry, Strom said.
>
> The problems with Wi-Fi in Waikiki involve a lack of regulation and  
> the relatively low cost of setting up a system. And they are not  
> limited to the interference at places like the Halekulani.

"Lack of regulation" and "low cost" aren't problems with WiFi, they  
are the *very reasons for its success*.

> In simple terms, Wi-Fi refers to systems that use a small patch of  
> the FM radio spectrum to send signals between computers and the  
> Internet. Thus, a wireless transmitter is like a small FM radio  
> station with a range of perhaps 300 feet.

"FM radio spectrum"?

In most of the world, the FM broadcast band goes from 87.5MHz to  
108.0MHz.  (In the US (ITU region 2) it starts at 87.8MHz, due to the  
presence of TV channel 6), while WiFi runs at 2400MHz - 2483.5MHz, as  
well as in several "bands" between 5150MHz and 5850MHz.

So even the lowest WiFi band is some 23X the frequency of the FM  
broadcast band.   (Which is licensed spectrum, btw.)

Note also the 20MHz of spectrum for "FM broadcast" compared with the  
83Mhz of spectrum in the 2.4GHz band (where 802.11b and 802.11g run),  
and the hundreds of MHz of spectrum allocated in the band(s) where  
802.11a run.

> The problem is there are only a few channels for transmitting  
> information. So in a densely populated area like Waikiki, it's as  
> if there are a dozen or more small-power radio stations operating  
> on the same frequencies.

The lack of channels isn't the entire, or even main problem.

> "There's more and more people trying to access the same capacity,"  
> Strom said.

All other things being equal, there will always be more capacity in a  
single wire than there will be in an RF signal.  Its simply insane  
and stupid to talk about "wireless capacity", especially as it  
relates to large coverage ranges.  (Typically wireless capacity is  
expressed in bits/Mhz/m^2.   Note that as the coverage area goes up,  
"capacity" goes down.)

> Complicating the situation further, there are almost as many  
> business models as there are Wi-Fi hot spots where people can log  
> on without plugging in.

There is no "WiFi business model" that has the guests of the network  
"paying" for access to an AP.

Lemma: Free will always conquer non-free (price wins, all other  
things being equal)

Fact, due to the economics of installing a lot of low power APs, most  
"WISPS" attempt to install extended coverage, using more powerful
     transmitters and antennas with more gain

     Problem:  unless *things are perfect*, (which you can't  
guarantee, due to the unlicensed nature of the spectrum), these work  
to create
         more interference, not less.

Fact, users don't care about any supposed advantage, they just want  
to be left alone, and to enjoy a periodic, low-cost (and, essentially  
free) connection.

Fact, its trivial for the next person to install an AP, ruining your  
perfect deployment.

Fact, I've seen a lot of "for pay" situations go free, with a massive  
improvement for everyone.  I've even seen it happen on-island:
http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000204.htm

Gentlemen, I started putting in "WiFi (or rather, 802.11b, which  
became WiFi) in 1999.   Some of the people in Austin know that I was  
the CTO and VP of Engineering at Wayport back then.  Many people in  
Hawaii don't.   I've twisted the business model every which way, and  
they all fail in the face of free.

Even Wayport has started to move toward an amenity model (a managed  
service where the hotel pays Wayport, but the guest never sees a line- 
item for Internet service), and, point of fact, their biggest hotel  
contracts require that the service is "free to guest".   (I am still  
a Wayport shareholder, so I can't give details beyond this.)

I asked Wayport's board of directors, 10 months before I resigned,  
"What are you going to do when its all free?".   It took them over  
three years to develop an answer.

> Some private firms are building Wi-Fi networks with transmitters  
> mounted on rooftops. These companies charge customers for access,  
> using a model similar to Internet service providers. Skywave  
> Broadband Inc., for instance, charges from $3.95 for an hour to  
> $39.95 for a month of access to its network.

Skywave is a customer, and I still think they're doomed long-term.   
Of course, since Hawaii saw fit to allow Carlyle group to take over  
the ILEC, we won't be getting FIOS anytime son, so "long term" might  
be quite a bit longer in Hawaii than it would be in, say, Portland or  
Austin.   Ah well, there is still the beach, and its not too cold  
(and not too hot) here.

Oh yes, the girls wear bikinis year-round, thats nice too.

And its 5:30am in Hawaii, and I'm still drinking.   The kid will be  
up in an hour, and we'll get to go to the beach today.  Yesterday we  
were at Punchbowl, putting flags and flowers on the graves with his  
Cub Scout Pack.   http://www.alohacouncilbsa.org/welcome/punchbowl/ 
05punchbowlBOOKLET.pdf

Some things are far more important than WiFi, especially the for-pay  
kind.

> The result is a patchwork that can spell confusion, especially for  
> visitors A laptop user might have to pay one rate to T-Mobile at  
> Borders, another rate to the service provider at Barnes & Noble and  
> yet another to Wayport, which provides access at some McDonald's  
> restaurants.

Ah, well now we're talking about *roaming*, which is a different  
kettle of fish.   Its still doomed.  (BTW, the service provider at  
B&N is typically T-Mobile.)

Jim