Wireless Community

Icon

Wireless Broadband

Recently, there has been some press about Verizon’s “3G” Broadband Access service. While ubiquitious wireless data services are an important next step in our country’s data infrastructure, it puzzles me that we are calling this “Broadband”.

Broadband (regardless of the FCC’s official definition), should represent significanly faster bandwidth than standard dialup service. But even this isn’t the whole story. Broadband specifically refers to a connection’s ability to support full motion video and audio at a standard resolution, which a little bit of extra bandwidth to spare. Usually this means a video stream of 320×240.

Macromedia provides “a good webpage”:1 on some standard video encoding rates.

According to this page, a standard low motion video — 320×240 at 30 frames per second — should take up at least 800kbps. There are other calculations that can be made for other video and audio encoders, but they are all in the same ballpark for what you’ll find on the web.

Here’s the thing: Verizon states that the “typical speeds for BroadbandAccess are 400-700kbps”:2. *This is clearly below what is necessary for standard quarter screen full motion video!*

So, when did Broadband become only a few times faster than dialup? I posit that we shouldn’t allow anything below 1mbps upstream AND downstream to be called Broadband. Anything else is false advertising.

[1]http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/flash/articles/flv_encoding_02.html#calculator
[2]http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobileoptions/broadband/index.jsp?action=broadbandAccess

Filed under: News, Urban Wireless

Speech at City Hall Park

I was recently asked to speak at City Hall Park in New York City about public wireless and the work that NYCwireless has done. Here’s the video, with the transcript following.

http://www.sociabledesign.com/dana.cityhall.20050622.mov

NYCwireless was formed in the spring of 2001 to bring free public wireless internet to the people of New York City. As one of the first and most visible Community Wireless Networks, we created the first park hotspot in Tompkins Square Park. We were the first to partner with both public and private organizations to bring freely available internet to dozens of parks and other public spaces like Bryant Park, Union Square Park, and City Hall Park. We created the first Wireless Art Festival, called Spectropolis, which for the past two years celebrated and explored what technology and art can create in an urban environment, bringing the internet off of desktops and onto street corners. And we were one of the first to bring free wireless internet to the homes and apartments of some of the underserved citizens of this city. Like many other things this great city has pioneered, NYCwireless has led the charge for public wireless internet.

What we’ve accomplished with the help of many New Yorkers is important. We stand now at the beginning of a new era, one where every citizen lives a digital and connected life, where information is available on every street corner, education is available from every park bench, and our friends and family are always only a few button clicks away. And New York is ready to lead the way again. We believe that affordable, universal internet access is no longer a privilege, but a right and necessity for every New Yorker.

We believe that it is the responsibility of our government and each and every citizen to help make this new era come to pass, and applaud all who step up to the challenge. Working together with other organizations, we have seen the great things that free public wireless can bring to all New Yorkers, whether they are students living in the East Village, a family living in the Bronx, or just someone getting back on their feet with a job living in Harlem. New York was the greatest city of the 20th century. Its time for all of us to become the greatest City of the 21st.

Filed under: Community Wireless, New York City, News

Why Mesh-based Wireless Networks Are Ideal for New York

Mesh networks are wireless networks, based on Wi-Fi technology, where each wireless “node” or “access point” connects with a number of other wireless nodes. Information flows from node to node, winding up either at its destination or the internet in general. Internet connections, in a mesh-based network, are provided by one or more nodes that connect to the internet directly (referred to as “backhaul”).

bq. Robust and reliable, mesh wireless systems offer multiple points of connection to the network and no central tower. Mesh users can bypass obstacles like hills and trees by using different signal paths. Mesh networks are easily expandable at very low cost, and they have no single point of failure. Mesh networks also feature shorter distances between nodes, which means each antenna can broadcast at lower power, creating less interference and allowing more users to communicate simultaneously. (from “http://www.freepress.net/wifi/guide2.php”:1)

The benefits of mesh technology are many:

* self-organized, dynamic routing and connection
* little or no centralized configuration
* each node is interchangeable with every other node
* overlapping wireless coverage areas ensure that no node is a point of failure
* no wires are necessary, as the network is entirely wireless
* organic build-out of the entire network is possible
* multiple separate networks can be built independently and grow into a single cohesive network
* redundant paths to backhaul
* easy/seamless addition of additional backhaul

The alternative for wireless networks are “hub-and-spoke” networks, so called because they resemble bicycle wheels in their architectural diagrams. In hub-and-spoke networks there is one central distribution node with which all client nodes communicate. This centralized architecture is like the cell phone networks: even when client nodes are close to one another, they must route through the central tower in order to communicate. This creates a single point of failure, and requires significant infrastructure at these tower nodes.

Mesh networks are designed to survive the failure of a single node (and sometimes more than single node). Like the internet itself, mesh networks have significantly more resiliency built in. Its untrue that they are more likely to go down than non-mesh networks; This is like saying that cars with airbags are more likely to crash. The fact is that mesh networks have extra safeguards from failure, and reduce the likelihood of network failure.

Furthermore, since there is built in overlap between the service area of neighboring mesh nodes, if one should go down, service should still be available in its coverage area (albeit at a possibly lower data rate). Because mesh nodes are interchangeable, servicing the network is as simple as plugging in a new node where one has failed. This isn’t nearly so easy to do with a non-mesh network, even one that has a centralized network management system. Mesh networks need no such network management infrastructure, since their management intelligence is built into each node, and is spread dynamically throughout the entire network.

So, what does this mean for New York City? Let’s look at a couple of examples, which “NYCwireless”:2 has had the opportunity to investigate:

*In Building Wireless Network*

New York City has a plethora of apartment buildings, many of which date from the early or mid parts of the 1900′s (and some even earlier). These buildings have electrical and phone systems, but even cable networks are an add on. Creating an additional network is both expensive and difficult for these buildings, since it often requires significant construction to create a complete wired network infrastructure that is safe from the elements. This is the reason why Wi-Fi has been so popular with New Yorkers — cable and DSL modems don’t often reside where people want to use their computers.

Using a mesh-based wireless network, such buildings are easy to “light up”. Traditional hub-and-spoke wireless networks rely on a distributed wired infrastructure (like cable and DSL networks), whereas the only requirement for a mesh network is electricity. Using a centralized backhaul located in one or a few places in the building, and inexpensive mesh wireless devices, an entire building, servicing 100′s of units, can be brought merely by plugging in the nodes at appropriate locations (3-10 per floor, on average).

Since most buildings have thick walls separating apartments or floors, if there is a spot in the building where the wireless signal is weak, just add another mesh node nearby. And since the nodes are usually powerful enough to communicate between adjacent floors, the network will have multiple routes up and down the building, ensuring that even if part of the network goes down, the rest of the network will still work.

Distributing a wired backhaul (T1 or fiber internet connection) throughout a building is cost effective, but it may not even be necessary all of the time. If there is another nearby building with lots of available bandwidth — like a school, library, or even business — setting up a higher-powered mesh node at that location will enable the extra network capacity to be wirelessly beamed into the building through the windows. With this type of network, there might not even be any wired internet at all within the building!

*Business District Network*

New York City is filled with Business Districts. Whether you live on the south side of Staten Island, Central Harlem, or along Northern Boulevard in Queens, there are plenty of areas where small businesses (and sometimes large ones) line the streets for blocks on end. Especially for small businesses, bringing in an internet connection can be both costly and time consuming (waits of months for a T1 are not unheard of). Considering that many small businesses would rather place their resources into running and building their shops, spending all of that time and money, month over month, on simple internet access can be a wasteful investment.

Creating a wireless hotspot all along a business district benefits residents, businesses, and visitors to that area. This is the primary reason why the “Alliance for Downtown New York”:3 partnered with “NYCwireless”:2 to help create its “wireless network in downtown Manhattan”:4, and why other Business Improvement Districts (BID) and Parks have worked with “NYCwireless”:2 in similar capacities. Creating a hotspot that exists outside (throughout the cold New York winter) is hard enough. Creating a hotspot, using traditional non-mesh wireless technologies, that is larger than a standard City block is even harder. Consider that such a hotspot likely needs more than one DSL connection, that its hardware must be mounted outdoors, and that if a local business is a participating host for all or part of the network, that the network becomes dependent upon that business staying in that location for years on end.

All of these difficulties are easily solved by using a mesh network. Instead of mounting the hotspot access point and large antenna on the top of a short building, the multiple nodes of the mesh network can be mounted inside or next to local storefronts, lining the street. Backhaul can reside inside of a building where it is easy to get to, and more DSL lines can be added as needed. Since there are more mesh nodes than the few traditional access points, coverage is better.

The best part of this architecture is that the business district network no longer is reliant on one or a couple of businesses. Instead, the backhaul can be provided by a long-standing resident of the area — most likely a BID or City organization — and the network can flow down the street. As local businesses come and go, the BID can merely unplug a mesh node from a departing business, and plug it in next door. The network continues to operate, and service never has to go down for more than a few minutes (if even that). In this type of community architecture, a traditional hub-and-spoke network would be unmanageable.

*City-wide Network*

New York City represents a great challenge for any wireless network. The dense metropolitan area covers about 240 square miles, and much of that area is covered by buildings 20 or more stories in height. New York is truly a huge, three dimensional city.

Creating a large scale wireless network throughout New York represents a great challenge — one that “NYCwireless”:2 would love to help solve. In all likelihood, any solution that makes this endeavor tractable will need to make use of multiple network technologies, and combine network deployments from a number of providers. To be sure, New York will require more ingenuity than that of Philadelphia’s, San Francisco’s, and Boston’s wireless city plans.

Here again, mesh networks can play multiple roles. Nodes can disburse wireless internet backhaul from the city’s dark fiber and existing excess bandwidth via a mesh network mounted on lamp posts. That network can feed separate mesh networks that draw the internet up into and throughout a building like a tree drinks water. And people and businesses can move their lives and their livelihoods from building to building without causing network disturbances.

With the help of mesh networks, New York can become a living, organic city, whose lifeblood is the packets of information that flows freely from point to point, person to person, bouncing around automatically finding its way to and from the internet.

[1]http://www.freepress.net/wifi/guide2.php
[2]http://www.nycwireless.net
[3]http://www.downtownny.com
[4]http://www.downtownny.com/?sid=49

Filed under: Community Wireless, Mesh, New York City, Urban Wireless

FCC Consumer Advisory Committee

I am sitting at the FCC Consumer Advisory Committee, of which NYCwireless is a new member. This is an interested collection of folks, representing industry, consumer organizations, and assistive organizations.

So what is the CAC? It is an organization within the FCC that is made up of 55 representatives from the outside who make recommendations to the FCC about a number of issues.

There are a number of people on the CAC that are interested in addressing the issues that NYCwireless is dealing with, especially with low-income and underpriviledged service, spectrum and other policy, municipal broadband and wireless, and universal access.

There are really two interesting things going on with the CAC:

# The FCC is a very open agency regarding input from the public (both industry, organization, and general population), and
# Organizing 55 people is a very difficult process.

Each of these 55 people on the Committee have lots of experience working through organizations, yet since so many of them haven’t worked together before, and since the organizers haven’t done a whole lot to facilitate working together other than giving everyone a microphone, this seems like its going to be a relatively slow process working through this Committee.

Also, of interest is that the FCC requires an incredible amount of security process to get into and out of the building. I would hazard that this for good cause, but they actually require that all computers are turned on and demonstrated to actually work, and that all cell phones and PDAs also be shown to be functional. This is really the level of device checking that should be required whenever you check these devices. They also have a “great Wi-Fi network”:1 that’s provided for free.

[1]http://www.wifithankyou.com/thankyous/show/74

Filed under: Policy

Van Alen Institute Roundtable

I was invited to participate in a “Van Alen Institute”:1 roundtable discussion today about Mobile City, which is in preparation for an art exhibition titled “The Good Life Exhibition” to take place in the Spring/Summer of 2006. At the table were a number of great minds, including people from Parsons School of Design, the University of Minnesota Design Institute, Pentagram, and others:

* Jan Abrams, Director, Design Institute, University of Minnesota, VAI Trustee
* Michael Bierut, Partner, Pentagram
* Dana Spiegel, Executive Director of NYCwireless and an MIT Media Lab alumnus
* Steven Johnson, author, Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter (2005), Emergence (2002); Interface Culture (1999), and Mind Wind Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life (2003)
* Katie Salen, Director of Graduate Studies,Design and Technology, Parsons School of Design and Author of Rules of Play: Game Design (2003)
* Jane Harrison, Principal, ATOPIA
* Kevin Slavin, Co-founder + managing director area/code
* Benjamin Aranda, Partner, terraswarm

It was a terrific discussion, and I hope that my participation helped Van Alen in preparing for the exhibition.

We covered a number of topics, including transportation, wireless technologies, and gaming, and though I thought my participation would mostly be useful for discussions about wireless, it turns out that we talked more about socialization and interaction than anything else.

Of particular interest to me was a discussion about a project that Pentagram is in conjunction with NYC Taxis. We started out talking about how to reconnect riders and their drivers, in a way that is similar to how that relationship used to exist when Taxi drivers were mostly wise-cracking, interactive Brooklyn and Bronx residents. Now that the vast majority of Taxi drivers are immigrants, there seems to have been a shift (though I don’t think its due to their nationality) away from passenger/driver interaction towards a disconnected server/client relationship, where there’s virtually no interaction through the wall of Plexiglas.

As we were talking about some of the reasons why this shift has taken place, Steven suggested that it was partly due to the prevalence of mobile technologies. This immediately clicked with me, and I suggested that part of the reason why the uptake of cell phones by taxi drivers was so significant was specifically because they are immigrants. Let me explain:

* As new immigrants, taxi drivers are trying settle in their new homes.
* One of the things that makes this easier are the friends and family that they interact with, who are also immigrants, and may have helped the driver come to the US.
* This process of settling is important since it eases the significant culture change that is experienced. Driving a taxi, most taxi drivers virtually no one who would be part of this social support network during the day (or night).
* A connection back to their family and friends (some or most of whom are other taxi drivers) makes the job more livable, since taxi drivers spend most of their day in their cabs.

In the same way that Instant Messaging in the workplace makes work a little more livable and comfortable, since you can interact with your friends and family, cell phones serve the same purpose in taxi cabs.

During this discussion, specific ideas about how to create works for the Taxi Cab project were requested. One of the interesting hypotheses that I suggested is to create a visualization that shows taxi drivers and the people they talk with during the day via cell phone. Placing this on a map, I suggested that what you might find is that taxi drivers tend to drive the areas that they know, which is also the areas that their friends know. This would manifest itself visually on a map as “gangs” of taxi drivers, where the gangs are made from social connectivity. This would make a fascinating display, and would answer some of the questions about how taxi drivers learn and integrate into their new city.

[1]http://www.vanalen.org

Filed under: Community Wireless, New York City, Urban Wireless

Twitter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.