SFist: Free Wi-Fi Network Reaches 80% of San Francisco?

Belgand

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:28:28 -0800

It doesn't reach 80% of course. As to the Mission if you check their site it says that they started in the Mission. I recall seeing signs there last year or so trying to get people to take repeaters. Almost completely forgot about it until now. Considering that it's a repeater based system it will need to slowly grow from a central area with a few nodes providing signal and a lot of repeaters spreading that. Give it some time, this isn't going to go up overnight.

zippy_monster

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:07:30 -0800

wsanders: it's a ToS violation only if you've got an ISP and not Comcast or some other web browser provider.

pstarr

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:51:06 -0800

dubious. looks like i've got a hotspot right next door, but it's not showing up IRL.

Jamison

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:32:15 -0800

It works both ways. A repeater which doesn't have it's own internet connection will look around to find a buddy in range which does and then works to relay data between you and the closest repeater with a connection. Meraki is providing DSL to some key locations, which then gets relayed to nearby repeaters, but the repeaters themselves aren't that picky and will share an internet connection if you plug them into one.

withak

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:25:02 -0800

I thought they worked by talking to the other repeaters to go all they way back through Meraki's internet connection somewhere, not by hooking straight in to bunch of random existing internet connections.

wsanders

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:59:16 -0800

A lot of the Meraki base stations, I don't know how many of the ones shown on their map, are hung off Joe Random's DSL or Comcast service. I don't know how many. Joe Random does this in the interest of public service, of course, technically it's TOS violation. It would be easy to drive around and find and identify the customer.

withak

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:25:56 -0800

RobinSF: That can't have anything to do with these repeaters. They don't have anything to do with your existing internet connection.

billyw

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:17:14 -0800

I read somewhere that 80% of SF suburbs have at least 1 Meraki node, I guess that where the figure comes from? Paid Earthlink or free Meraki in SF without using a cent of tax payers money?Meraki win hands down, it's a no brainer....well done for supporting an affordable housing area. Billy www.merakeye.com

zippy_monster

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:22:51 -0800

ohmygolly: clearly the Mission is the city. Robin: find a real ISP.

wiyum

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:05:05 -0800

Robin give us the goods. link? =p

RobInSF

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:41:27 -0800

In a related story, Comcast has begun canvassing neighborhoods with hotspots and shutting them down for violation of the TOS.

ChesterY

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:15:11 -0800

Gee, now that Meraki has granted us with such great Wi-Fi service in the City, I'm sure glad that Chris Daly torpedoed the Google/Earthlink free Wi-Fi.

periqueblend

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:17:18 -0800

Inner Sunset is a major neighborhood I guess not.

Jamison

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:02:55 -0800

What this comes down to is they are simply using the wrong map. When I got one of their routers a year ago and few people were using Free the Net, that map was probably mostly those using it were probably like me and checking on their own repeaters use or curious about that level of usage detail. Now that it's being more widely used as a coverage map, they should follow Travin's advice. They don't publicize it anymore, but they do have a message board, forums.meraki.com, where they read and respond to postings. I'm with Theo about the splash page, it makes the network worthless and I've trained my iPhone to ignore it entirely.

anon8mizer

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:30:42 -0800

80% my ass. Inner Sunset is a major neighborhood. there is one at 2nd and irving I think. That's it. Nada at 9th/irving, 7th/irving, etc. I still can't use it. Reminds me of my college statistics professor, who once said, "Statistics are like bikinis. It reveals a lot but hides the most important stuff."

travin

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:21:53 -0800

Here's a good example. Website screen shot http://tinyurl.com/5dzmqt Zoomed in map http://tinyurl.com/5wef96

travin

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:08:34 -0800

Yeah, I get the logical intention of the map. I'm just observing that the majority of folks will intuitively read the green blobs (green for on...green for go...green for good) as coverage range. The map covered in green blobs means it's covered because, well, it looks covered. Only it's not. "Yeah, I saw a google map on this website showing how much of the city is covered by free wifi. They're everywhere all over the map. This is great!" Only they're not and it's not. Might get them some more investors though. Ra ra ra

theo

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:56:13 -0800

I wouldn't say the map's deceptive, it's exactly what it says it is -- a map of Meraki hotspot users (with a histogram in the upper corner). As for that 80% figure -- whatever, Gavin. Maybe 80% of hipster SF? I do wish Meraki would do something about the annoying EULA screen that seems to come up every time you switch hotspots. It makes it impossible to use Meraki when you're on the move with your iPhone and the AT&T network is the usual suckfest. Damn hipsters clogging the tubes.

pantsgolem

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:56:02 -0800

@travin: The coverage map page also has a "total users" chart at the top, which is what I used to get the 20%. (Assuming it's even accurate, of course.) But you're right, it's probably worse area-wise.

travin

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:44:41 -0800

It's interesting that they would attempt to impress us via deceptive infographics. With all these little to big green blobs on a small map, conceptually the average person reads it as each of those blobs demarcates range of coverage. However, instead the green blobs appear larger *only* in relation to how many people have connected to that wireless device. So even if you have a big green blob that says '10+' covering what appears to be a 3-4 block radius, the device still only has an effective range of a cordless telephone. And those 10+ people could be in a single building. Change the way that map is drawn so that each of those green blobs accurately reflects the extent of signal range coverage and they all turn into a minute pinpoints. Meaning that there's probably less than 1% coverage of the whole city at this time. I give their efforts 4 out of 5 FAIL Whales.

periqueblend

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:43:11 -0800

Even when you get the network it is s l o w e r than dial up in Wasilla.

ohmygolly

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:32:38 -0800

i was gonna say, 80% of what part of the city? i still can not see the signal in the north mission near zeitgeist nor near 16th + bryant.

pantsgolem

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:30:20 -0800

Oh, found it. To date, Meraki has provided its Wi-Fi gear and free access to the Internet to residents in 80 percent of San Francisco's major neighborhoods. (Emphasis mine) So basically, all it's saying is that 80% of SF neighborhoods have at least 1 Meraki access point. Conversely, 20% have zero. In other words, FAIL. (Them, not you. The original statistic is clearly intended to mislead.)

pantsgolem

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:24:09 -0800

Um, what? This is not 80%. It's just shy of 20%. Where did that figure come from, anyway?