Just came across Scott Rafer's blog, Provisioning Soweto. There are a couple of articles on his site that tie in to my ongoing thinking about the "Wi-Fi Zone" initiative of the Wi-Fi Alliance.
One article from Rafer's site, titled "Cooking Wi-Fi Zone", raises several complaints about Wi-Fi Zone:
1) Licensing scheme
2) Site survey requirement
3) Backhaul requirements
4) Adoption of paid hotspot networks
I also think that the Wi-Fi Alliance's licensing terms are too steep at this point. A minimum of $100 per year is a lot to pay for small venues. Is it worth that for a quality guarantee? What does T-Mobile say about their wireless hotspots?
The site survey requirement seems to be a checkbox on a form somewhere. No matter what the size of your venue, you need a site survey? At least it's fairly simple to do, and you only have to do it once, unless the Wi-Fi Alliance receives enough complaints -- they can demand another site survey.
Tying backhaul requirements to the number of access points seems strange at first glance. Even second glance. But, APs are much easier to count than users. And a 128 Kbps backhaul speed insures some level of throughput. About the same as dialup, if there are very many users :)
I am also skeptical about the viability of a paid access business model. I agree with the thinking outlined in the second article on Rafer's blog -- "Like charging for salt and pepper".
In that article, a venue owner says he pays $60 a month for broadband access (1.5 Mbps), which he uses anyway, and he gives the rest away.
Giving away bandwidth, especially if a venue already has broadband, is a small cost of doing business, and a big differentiator for customers. And a big plus -- it's a lot less hassle for owners and customers.
Posted by Patrick at January 30, 2003 04:12 PM | TrackBack