Is it almost time to have a "hot city"?

[f_chowd0696]

I have heard of a couple small cities that have their entire city covered in terms of a wireless network. How many more years are we away from a city lets say the size of Houston or LA to have wifi throughout the entire metro? When this happens, a device like the ipod touch would become extremely powerful and helpful. I hope this time comes soon enough, because safari on my touch is worthless. Once I step out of my house the wifi functionality is useless and at home I have a laptop.

What are the logistics of having a network that large? How expensive would it be and do we have the technology today for that large of a coverage?

[DerekVOF]

Well, San Francisco was going to get full Wi-Fi coverage from Google. And some other cities were trying as well. However, most (all?) have seemed to have fallen through. Plus with the release of WiMax which has a much larger coverage area, there are questions whether Wi-Fi is the way to go for long term wireless coverage in a city.

Here's the article from Engadget about the plug being pulled on San Francisco's Wi-Fi:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/06/san-francisco-pulls-the-plug-on-google-earthlinks-citywide-wi/

[Agua]

Don't forget a massive city such as Phoenix and Glendale in Arizona. Phoenix is second or third largest in the country I believe. That would take massive range and capability to cover the whole thing and supply it to all wireless users, not to mention the kind of service it would have to have minimum lag.

Thats just my thought on the subject.

[kornchild2002]

It would take quite a bit of resources to get city wide wi-fi without lag. My university is pretty damn big (it is actually the largest university in the U.S. counting just the amount of acres it takes up) and they have 12 wi-fi towers to offer students free campus wide internet. They could probably get away with only using 6 towers but then need 12 so the wi-fi network isn't bogged down. Take a city like L.A., San Francisco, Phoenix, Glendale, Houston, or even Albuquerque, you would need massive amounts of wi-fi towers to ensure that the city gets wi-fi and the network doesn't get bogged down. I am sure it would cost a city as big as Albuquerque, NM millions of dollars to get things up and running so I would imagine it would cost larger cities like San Fransisco over $10 million just to get the downtown/metro area up and running. That is way too much money to pour into a project that will have no return.

[bjack913]

Philadelphia is completely blanketed in WiFi. You can walk through any public place in the city, pick up a signal, and hop on the network for free.

[startyoo]

Mountainview, Cali. has complete and free wifi coverage from google, San Fran may not.. but google offers it in Mountainview.