A company, Tropos Networks Inc., in California has blanketed a 1 sq. mi. area of a northern California town with wi-fi signals connected out to the net from centralized base stations via landlines.

Now, you won't find any bigger supporter for broadband applications, particularly in small and rural communities, than me. However I can forsee a problem with Tropos' model. Wi-fi operates on unlicensed public frequencies, specifically 2.4Ghz and 5.8Ghz. Both frequencies are subject to interference, with the 2.4 being more sensitive to it than the 5.8, and also the most heavily deployed of the two frequencies. If they have heavily blanketed a 1 sq. mi. are of a town such that anyone anywhere in that are that has a wi-fi card for their computer can connect in and surf the net, that means the chances of an office building in the same area successfully installing its own internal wi-fi network are greatly diminished. Existing networks may find themselves no longer functioning properly due to interference.

Now, this might be tolerable if access to the Tropos network was free as you could then just exchange access to one network for another. However Tropos is working with a local ISP to providen the network and it costs up to $4.95/hr to access it.

I know that if I was running a free amateur wi-fi network, or an private business wi-fi network, in the area and found I was being drowned out by this new network I would first ask them to redirect their signal and if they refused to do so I would switch to a different more focussable antenna and point it right at theirs and knock out their network.

This is a real problem that is just starting to show its head as numerous large telecom companies make plans to enable for pay wi-fi hot spots throught the larger cities. When those signals start to encroach on public space and on unrequested private space then there is a potentially large problem with personal freedom on the horizon. By blanketing an area with signal at the highest wattage (4w here in Canada) that the FCC allows for unlicensed bands, using focussed antennas a private company can effectively take over the frequency space even though it is intended to be a public unowned frequency.

I have no problem with a coffee shop, like Starbucks, installing wi-fi accessibility inside their shop and charging for it. It is their property, go for it, if people are inclined to pay for the service all the more powr to you. It is when it leaves that private space and invades public space or other private space uninvited that I draw a line.

This is an abuse of the wi-fi protocol. It was never intended for outdoor use, in fact its range, under normal circumstances, is only around 300 feet. It was intended for indoor networks only and that is where it should stay.