In many cases, cities didn’t turn to seasoned professionals. They would have told them to get something more substantial or that the network topologies being cited were inadequate. Instead, they bought off on the hype of a new wonder technology along with its evangelists.

The realization that the technology bit off more than it could chew is nothing new. A recent Fast Company article reflects a new realization that Wi-Fi isn’t a universal solution for citywide networks:

The leading [municipal Wi-Fi] builder, which has committed millions to building city Wi-Fi networks, still hasn’t nailed down the formula for profitability.

“It’s an evolving process,” says Cole Reinwand, EarthLink vice president of product strategy and marketing. “That’s what we’re trying to get a handle on right now.”

For one thing, the total upfront cost is still an unknown. The number of nodes (or antennas) that EarthLink and hardware maker Tropos planned on using in Philadelphia had to be doubled to get better reception, according to Wi-Fi expert Glenn Fleishman of Wi-Fi Networking News.

At $2,000 or $3,000 per node, switching from some 20 nodes per square mile to almost 50 quickly runs up the bill.

In designing many networks, you find it’s not a cookie-cutter approach and what works in Philadelphia may not work in San Francisco or Chicago.

With emerging technologies, many people think there is some standard recipe for success. Mike Carioscio, a longtime friend and colleague (and Pepsi’s CTO), used to say many people look for “a magic bullet to solve all network designs”. This doesn’t exist.

There are many variables you must consider including the environment in which you’re installing the nodes. More nodes needed translate to higher implementation costs. All of a sudden, a bargain approach now needs a huge, multimillion-dollar cash infusion in order to make it work.

When in Doubt, Blame Someone Else

At Duke University, there were complaints about people not being able to use their iPhones and they crashed some Cisco networks. How many experts put that wireless network together? What about the experts commenting on the real problem? This is from an expert blog:

When Wi-Fi access points began issuing the equivalent of busy signals, Duke network staff traced the problem to misbehaving iPhones that were flooding the routers with bogus Internet address requests at the rate of up to 18,000 per second.

The author received comments from readers with a more realistic perspective. This one was one of the best and most accurate:

I’ve been working as a Cisco engineer for a long time and never have I heard anything like this. First of all, Cisco wireless access points and routers can’t handle 18,000 requests a second.

Second of all, iPhones must be using some powerful processors to be requesting DHCP addresses 9,000 times a second.

All of the misinformation, blame and pseudo-expert hype in this article proves my point again. There are a lot of people writing and commenting about this stuff who really should not hold themselves out as an expert.

In another article, the iPhone appears to be exonerated:

A problem with Duke University’s wireless network caused outages at the school, officials said, exonerating the initial suspect (Apple’s new iPhone).

“A particular set of conditions made the Duke wireless network experience some minor and temporary disruptions in service,” Duke spokeswoman Tracy Futhey said in a written statement posted on the university’s Web site.

She added: “Those conditions involve our deployment of a very large, Cisco-based wireless network that supports multiple network protocols.”

What did the design experts do wrong at Duke? The bottom line is that many networks have not been thoroughly tested or set up to be very secure. While wireless networks can be secure, you need to know what you’re doing and have adequate bandwidth.

Garden Hoses Don’t Put Out Fires

Just as you wouldn’t expect firefighters to use garden hoses to put out fires, you can’t expect network infrastructures to deliver huge amounts of bandwidth if you’re using a wireless network that was never designed to be a fire hose of bandwidth.

If we explain it that way, perhaps people will “get it right” instead of “getting burned” by inadequate network designs.

There are other significant wireless alternatives – like WiMAX – but we will save those for another time. There are also other carriers getting into the municipal solutions business. Why? More municipalities are looking for wireless solutions and alternate network infrastructures because they are concerned about economic development.

They are reaching beyond the traditional approach by the incumbent because they can’t wait to get something better in place. Some have locked in on wireless as the solution that’s needed.

Now that AT&T is getting into wireless solutions for cities, some cities believe it must now be a safe bet if that company is supplying the answer. If nothing else, AT&T’s entry into the wireless solutions market provides more credibility to the technology as a potential viable solution.

However, there are no safe bets in this industry any more. No one has a corner on talent in the industry and even the carriers can get it wrong at times. AT&T came late into the market as compared to others.

As I commented following a MuniWireless column in Sept. 2006: “Incumbents are not risk takers or innovators. They will wait long before committing any resources until a market is labeled a ‘sure thing’.”

AT&T followed the old “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” adage and pursued providing a wireless solution for Springfield, Ill. as well as bidding on Chicago’s pursuit of a wireless initiative. The company is pursuing other cities as well.

With large cities, you need a combination of wireless nodes and fiber-optic infrastructure to handle the traffic. Many evangelists for Wi-Fi don’t have the broad background you need in order to design and implement mission-critical networks needing a combination of transmission media.

For years, I started network management courses with: “There are no experts in this industry. The best you can be is a good student who’s always learning.” Unfortunately, many who proclaim to be wireless experts are not.

Carlinism: You get what you pay for. When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.