Wireless Community

Icon

The End User Cost of Muni-networks

I’m a big fan of what’s going on in Philadelphia, but “this article in The Philadelphia Inquirer”:1 has me thinking that maybe all of this talk about the end user cost of muni-networks is, in part, wrong.

One way that most Community Wireless networks are different from other broadband networks is that they view their wireless service as supplemental. In other words, NYCwireless wouldn’t ever expect to be the *only* Internet service that a person uses. This is true for most CWNs, especially those in urban places.

As such, our pricing models expect that usage of the networks is an add on to a user’s already expensive broadband connection. This is one way that commercial Wi-Fi is different, and why so many people are unhappy about the high prices. Is the $30 per month (or thereabout) price of a T-Mobile Wi-Fi a supplemental service fee, or is it a primary broadband connection fee?

I already pay over $100 per month for my DSL at home. I’m not going to pay another $20 or $30 per month just to get Wi-Fi periodically. And neither are most other people (discount the road-warrior types who’s businesses pay for their supplemental internet fees).

We need a more sophisticated pricing model. And this is what bothers me about the Philadelphia prices. The Philly network imagines that it is the primary broadband connection for people living in the city. But what about all of the people who already have $40-$60 home DSL and cablemodems? Wireless Philadelphia should make sense for them as well, except they won’t really use it at home, just when they are away from home.

I think this is critical for the project’s success. What is the right price for supplemental Internet? I personally would pay about $5 *total* for all other broadband I would use outside of my home. I suspect that this pricing is about what other people would be willing to pay as well. This type of pricing model respects existing broadband service, and offers the opportunity for Philadelphia to capture more of the market. It also acknowledges that one company/organization can’t solve the universal broadband issue by itself.

Who says that I should only have 1 broadband connection? Telcos, cable companies, WISPs, and any other broadband provider *must* embrace this view of the market, because its the way things will be in the future.

[1]http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/12888807.htm

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, NYCwireless, Policy, Urban Wireless

Google Proposes Free Muni-Wireless Network for San Francisco

“Google has offered to build and run for free”:1 the entire San Francisco Municipal Wi-Fi network.

This validates what I have always been saying about city-wide, non-discriminatory internet service. More internet users = more online commerce and communication. If Google can bring online even a small percentage of the 776,000 people that live in San Francisco, they will have increased their customer base by a non-trivial amount. To say nothing of all of the additional online commerce these people will make use of, indirectly increasing Google Ad sales.

This is just common sense. Why wouldn’t every company online want more people to be potential customers? Every single internet based company should be banging down the doors of every politician they know to get them to support such citywide build-outs and put pressure on commercial internet providers.

This is also the reason why more online retailers should support all of the muni-wireless initiatives and community wireless groups: we’re helping to get you more customers!

Also:
“New York Times”:2
“San Francisco Chronicle”:3
“Wi-Fi Net News”:4

[1]http://gigaom.com/2005/09/30/google-confirms-san-francisco-wifi-plans/
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/technology/01google.html
[3]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/01/MNGG9F16KG1.DTL
[4]http://wifinetnews.com/archives/005898.html

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, News, Urban Wireless

Google Sponsorship of Bryant Park

!http://static.flickr.com/33/46775557_397e78c4b7_o.jpg(Google Sponsorship of Bryant Park)!:1

I was walking through Bryant Park, and noticed a well hidden sign (there was only one of them that I could find) that announced the “Bryant Park Wireless Network sponsored by Google”:2.

This is the only fixed sign I have ever seen for free park Wi-Fi. The “Downtown Alliance”:3 has some rolling signs for some of their “downtown hotspot locations”:4, but they aren’t rolled out by the grounds crew some of the time.

Its nice to see a park be so dedicated to integrating Wi-Fi that they actually put a permanent sign in place.

[1]http://www.flickr.com/photos/danaspiegel/46775557/
[2]http://www.bryantpark.org/amenities/wireless.php
[3]http://www.downtownny.com
[4]http://www.downtownny.com/discover/wifi/

Filed under: New York City, NYCwireless, Urban Wireless

New York Daily News Published Poorly Researched Article about New York City Hotspots

The New York Daily News published “a poorly researched article”:1 today about new Wi-Fi hotspots in New York City. They fail to mention the dozen or so parks that NYCwireless has already helped “light up”. Here’s the letter I have written to the newspaper in response:

bq. The article “Wi-Fi umbrella to cover 10 city parks” by Austin Fenner on Sept. 13 claims that New Yorkers will “soon be able to surf [the Internet] in city parks.”

bq. This has already been the case for the past 4 years. “NYCwireless”:2, a non-profit organization that advocates and enables the growth of free, public wireless Internet access in New York City and surrounding areas, has worked since 2001 to bring free public Wi-Fi to city parks and other public spaces.

bq. Working with other sponsoring organizations such as the Alliance for Downtown New York and the Union Square Partnership, local businesses, and residents, NYCwireless has helped bring Wi-Fi to Bryant Park, Union Square Park, City Hall Park, Tomkins Square Park, the South Street Seaport, and Bowling Green Park, among others. NYCwireless also works with other non-profits, such as Community Access, to bring free Wi-Fi to underserved and underprivileged city residents in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx.

bq. These Wi-Fi hotspots have been in use by many New Yorkers and visitors to the city for the past 3-4 years, and have been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles.

[1]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/345890p-295236c.html
[2]http://www.nycwireless.net

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

NYC MTA RFP for Subway Cellular Service

Articles in the “New York Times”:1 and the “New York Daily News”:2 announce that the New York City “Metropolitan Transportation Authority began soliciting bids for a 10-year contract that will involve immense technical complexity and probably be worth $50 million to $100 million” (New York Times).

Though not specifically broadband related, this RFP by the MTA is important because it represents the first time that any wireless technology has been embraced by the City’s subway system. I think that a planned expansion of cell systems into the subway is an important step in the right direction for New York, though limiting it to cellular technology shows that the MTA doesn’t fully “get it”.

I’ve spoken to many people who would spend upwards of 20-30 minutes waiting for a subway train to arrive, especially in stations that are outside of midtown and downtown Manhattan. These people want to be able to use their laptops and PDAs to get work done and to communicate with each other, and Wi-Fi would be the ideal technology for this. An ad-supported Wi-Fi network would complement the existing MTA advertising division.

One thing that I don’t get is that if this is meant to address safety and security issues, why the MTA wouldn’t want cell phones to be usable inside subway tunnels. Claiming concern about phones being used for remote detonation of bombs is preposterous: When was the last time that a terrorist setup a bomb in New York City, let alone in a subway? There are, frankly, plenty of other wireless technologies that could be used if a terrorist had the inclination.

Of greater concern should be the many times that someone would need assistance while stuck in a subway car halfway between stations, an event that happens at least weekly. Considering how many times the subway breaks down, I would think that the MTA would jump at the chance to give people the convenience of phone use while traveling.

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/nyregion/25phones.html
[2]http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/339738p-290096c.html

Filed under: New York City, News, Urban Wireless

How to Bring an Affordable Broadband ISP into New York City

I was recently asked by a colleague how an ISP like Earthlink can provide low cost broadband in New York City. The truth is that without help, they can’t. Let’s look at the two possibilities that exist: using existing infrastructure and building new infrastructure.

*Existing infrastructure*

There exist a handful of wires that enter most businesses and homes: copper/phone, coaxial, and electrical wiring.

Copper cabling is owned by Verizon. Because of an FCC requirement they must provide “common carrier” access at a competitive rate to other ISPs, which means that Earthlink can gain access to the copper and provide DSL. Earthlink would have to pay Verizon an access rate somewhat equivalent to (but probably a little less than) Verizon’s own DSL service, about $30 a month. Earthlink would need to charge at least this much in order to make any revenue on the service, so there’s no way they could underbid Verizon’s service. Earthlink, by the way, offers DSL in New York City at a rate of $19.95 for the first 6 months, and $45.95 per month for the second 6 months, which is an average of $32.95 per month for the minimum 1 year of service.

Coaxial cable is owned by either Time Warner Cable (TWC) or Cablevision, depending on which area of the city you are in. Over cable, Earthlink currently provides a cablemodem service at $44.95 a month. This service is essentially a rebranding of the Time Warner Cable Road Runner service, and as such, Earthlink must pay TWC an access rate that is close to TWC’s own cablemodem service, which is $44.95 per month. Furthermore, due to the recent “Brand X Supreme Court decision”:1, TWC is no longer required to let Earthlink provide this service.

Electrical lines are owned by ConEd. While technologies like Broadband over Powerlines (BPL) are starting to be deployed, they are still in their infancy. Even if such technologies were to be made available over ConEd’s power lines—and there are indications that much of New York City’s power lines and in building wiring won’t support this technology—ConEd the electric company is new to broadband service provision, and it is likely that they either will not allow a third party ISP like Earthlink to offer service, or will charge an uncompetitive rate for providing access.

*New Infrastructure*

Earthlink can build its own infrastructure to provide service. There are generally two components to a broadband service: internet connectivity/backhaul and last mile connectivity. Generally, the last mile connectivity—the line that brings the internet into your residence or business—is the most expensive part. There are options for backhaul that Earthlink can already use, such as dark fiber or leasing communications lines from a number of providers (Verizon included).

Last mile connectivity, in the case of wired service, requires digging up streets and sidewalks, bringing one or more cables into the basement of a building (in New York City, at least), and then bringing that cable up to the apartment or store that is receiving the service. This is expensive because it requires a significant amount of human labor, and because it requires lots of construction and politicking to get permits to do the work. It is unclear what such a network would cost to the end user subscribing to Earthlink service, but it would require an enormous investment on EarthLink’s part to even get 1 person hooked up. Furthermore, with the exception of perhaps fiber, such a network would just be a duplication of an existing copper, coax, or electrical network. Many buildings in downtown Manhattan already have a fiber line, so this might be a starting point, but fiber lines are absent exist from most residences in New York City.

The alternative is wireless last mile service. In this case, Earthlink would have to both select a technology—there are plenty out there that would work, including WiMax and Wi-Fi, and Earthlink is trialing them in other cities—and deploy the antennas. New York City, which is a large land area (303 square miles), has a secondary difficulty that isn’t shared by any other city in the USA: height. You can read a bit more about height issues that New York City presents in a “previous blog post”:2. These issues mean that there would have to be sufficient density of antenna deployment throughout the City in order to provide service.

Wireless solutions, however, are vastly cheaper than any wireline solution. Orders of magnitude cheaper. So much cheaper, in fact, that even a full City-wide deployment might be made available at an affordable (read $20 or so per month) rate to every resident.

Where can these antennas be placed? One option is to use the same deployment strategy that cellphone networks use, contracting with private land owners in the City and mounting them on buildings. This would work, but prices for antenna location rental are high, residents don’t want antennas nearby their apartments (the “not in my backyard” problem that plagues most infrastructure deployment), and there just aren’t enough enough locations. In fact, antenna deployment is so difficult that New York City has “_horrible_ cell phone service”:3. This is the primary reason why DoITT, New York City’s government IT organization has created a plan to lease City light-poles. Earthlink could use City light-poles for their network (they have already suggested that they’d like to), but the cost of doing so is still too expensive and too onerous to make it a viable option, at least under DoITT’s leasing requirements (the reasons for this are saved for another blog entry).

*Solutions*

In the end, the only way to bring affordable broadband to New York is to involve the Government. Either through requirements that prevent existing network owners from price gouging and other monopolistic behaviors, or through programs that enables cheap infrastructure to be created by new network providers. In the latter case, we can solve the problem for one or a couple of private companies by reducing the cost of leasing public space, but this really discounts the value of the investments we as residents of New York City have made in our public infrastructure.

Really, the best solution is for us, as a City, to invest in building more public, shared infrastructure. We have already done so by “laying down lots of fiber cable”:4 (there’s still lots that has gone unused). We should invest in more infrastructure that will enable lots of companies to compete to provide broadband to New Yorkers. This way, we don’t create another monopoly broadband provider, but rather create a means for lots of market competition.

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700415.html
[2]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2005/06/22/why-mesh-based-wireless-networks-are-ideal-for-new-york/
[3]http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01333.html
[4]http://www.nysernet.org/about

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

Universal Access and Fiscal Responsibility

In a great post, Sascha Meinrath, a fellow Community Wireless proponent talks about the “Pros of Community Networks”:1.

If Universal Access is a key component of a community’s mission, then it can be achieved 3 ways:

# *Via laws and regulation* — This is the least likely to succeed, since laws change, and can often times be trumped by state and federal legislation. National or even local for-profit companies are very good at fighting against such laws, both politically and via public opinion.
# *Via subsidies and tax breaks/credits* — This is expensive. Consider what it might cost in terms of tax dollars to convince a for-profit company to provide universal access. The company is in a position of power, in this case, and the price that a community will pay is proportional to how much they want the service. This is standard supply/demand economics.
# *Via municipal networks* — This may or may not be expensive, and has clear benefits over the medium and long term (as well as other benefits above).

The key here is that muni-networks are very often (always?) cheaper than the alternative, which is #2. Also, such projects (a) keep money in the local economy, and (b) creates local jobs, whereas solution #2 (and #1 for that matter) moves money out of the community.

The clear fiscally responsible choice for universal access is a muni-network, assuming that a sound plan for the operation of the network is created.

[1]http://www.saschameinrath.com/node/165

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, NYCwireless, Urban Wireless

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

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

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.