Re: MetroFi Press Release
Posted by Caleb Phillips on 31 March 2007We recently became aware of MetroFi’s press release on the KGW website concerning our efforts to test the MetroFi network in Portland. We’d like to correct a few factual errors, no doubt unintentional, in the press release:
To evaluate the Proof of Concept network, the City of Portland selected an independent firm, Uptown Services instead of Personal Telco Project, which also submitted a bid in response to a city RFP (request for proposal).
The Personal Telco Project did not bid on the Unwire Portland Testing IRFP. The team which did bid on the project was composed of two of the computer science faculty at Portland State University, along with myself, Russell and several other students from Portland State University. It was in fact, Portland State University and not Personal Telco which bid on the project.
Municipal wireless is still in its infancy, and there are few qualified experts in this new area of city-wide network assessment, which is significantly more complex than local hotspot testing. MetroFi respects the City’s vendor choice, and awaits the results of Uptown Services’ impartial evaluation within the next few weeks.
We also look forward to seeing how the methodologies and results from Uptown Services compare with ours. We feel confident that our methods are rigorous, but certainly welcome any well-founded criticism. We feel that the measurements should speak for themselves.
Personal Telco’s own unofficial testing effort is clearly not independent or impartial, and we can only presume that it’s driven by their perception that we are a competitor in their local hotspot deployment project.
First, our testing was not directly associated with the Personal Telco Project. The organization did not sponsor the activity or even know of its existence until we issued our announcement earlier this week. As explained above, the two authors of this investigation were initally a part of a Portland State University bid. Had that bid won, it would have proceeded under those auspices. It has never been a Personal Telco Project investigation. The results of our study are being published by us at www.unwirepdx-watch.org, not by the Personal Telco Project. It is simply inaccurate to characterize it as a “Personal Telco testing effort”.
Second, the Personal Telco Project itself has no single view of the Unwire Portland/MetroFi network, except perhaps that the City-initiated effort is not a reason to fold its tent.
Third, it might perhaps be wise not to judge the impartiality of our effort prior to seeing details of how we have proceeded in our investigation.
We don’t view Personal Telco as a competitor, but rather as a partner who can offer indoor coverage in locations where perhaps we can’t and can also offer Portland residents an additional option for free Wi-Fi access – a great outcome for Portland’s residents.
Personal Telco is not an Internet Service Provider (ISP). Personal Telco is an educational non-profit corporation whose mission is to “build wireless networks through community support and education”. Personal Telco does not compete with ISPs such as MetroFi, in fact, all Personal Telco nodes have a paid or donated internet service connection. As an organization, Personal Telco would be happy to use MetroFi as “partner”, if MetroFi’s terms of service were such that they allowed this.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
MetroFi To PTP: Up Yours…
Personal Telco Project members in essence shitcan the current state of MetroFi’s intermittently-available and ad-driven municipal wifi network. So what does MetroFi do? Issues a statement (pdf) questioning PTP’s motives and expertise…….
March 31st, 2007 at 11:02 am
The bit that gets me is their assertion that “city-wide network assessment” is complicated and has many factors which must be tested. The reality, of course, is that people on the ground only care about one thing: “Can I get online?”
The answer, it appears, is, “Not so much.” No one is going to care about any other test.
And the MetroFi press release artfully dodges that.
April 1st, 2007 at 9:34 am
The concept of “testing” is being promoted in several blogs - even MuniWireless.com has made this the “it” topic of the month. Quite frankly I don’t see why anyone should care about testing unless they are the ISP (MetroFi in this case).
It is in MetroFi’s best interest to deliver ubiquitous coverage. They will work to get it right or go out of business. No report is going to change anything they do, and no report is going to compel the city to remove MetroFi’s equipment (the lawsuits would be costly and I have yet to see a municipal leader step up and take responsibility for some of the poorer Wi-Fi networks out there.)
Why is PTP not testing cable agreements who have had over a decade to deliver? Why is PTP not testing Qwest? Both of these companies have franchise agreements with the city too.
The answer is that MetroFi is completely right in their response to PTP’s release. The company that should be most concerned with test results is MetroFi. From their perspective this is free engineering.
PTP, Uptown Services, and all these “testing” companies have it in their best interest to fail networks. Failing a WiFi network is easy - it’s unlicensed spectrum after all. The more failures, the more they appear to be helping the city.
When I’ve read that one of these testing companies has built a network of any significance I’ll give them an ounce of credibility. Until then they are all a bunch of witch hunters with a personal agenda. I don’t blame anyone who’s trying to make a living at Wi-Fi as testing companies are. But to go public with an agenda like this and seek to harm the reputation of a start-up such as MetroFi who is working to deliver free Wi-Fi throughout the city is self-defeating.
Chief
April 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Well, potential users might care.
It is in MetroFi’s best interest to deliver profitable service. That might be different than ubiquitous service. We don’t pretend to know anything about the financial aspects of MetroFi’s business.
I think, like MetroFi, you misinterpret the motivation for this investigation. Caleb and I did this because we could see how to do it well, we thought it would be interesting and fun, and we thought the information we obtained could enrich the public discourse on the subject.
a) PTP did not perform this investigation. Caleb Phillips and Russell Senior did.
b) Caleb and Russell are interested in wireless technology, and have access to the equipment that can be used to test wireless network performance. Tapping into cable service and/or phone lines would require more extensive permissions and equipment than were required for this.
MetroFi’s response is not completely right. They got fundamental facts wrong, and jumped to inaccurate conclusions, neither of which help. If Caleb and I provided free engineering, we consider that a good thing. You are welcome.
We didn’t define the standards. We were not party to the negotiation that established the standards. We don’t make the decisions about what to do with the information obtained. We simply understood how to test the standards, had the equipment necessary to do so, and thought it would be fun and interesting to do so.
I think you have misinterpretted our agenda. It is not to attack MetroFi. As for credibility, please assess our methodology. We don’t think our methodologies have been biased. The answers we have obtained say what they say. Please judge that product, rather than fruitlessly speculate about our motives.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Ignoring, for a moment that PTP did not conduct this test, Russell and Caleb did it independently, I will point out that PTP has built a network of some significance. Personal Telco’s work was a big part of why the city was interested in unwiring.
Two years ago, we got a small grant to deploy a usable network in North Portland, which provides internet access, community resources and acts as a test bed for technologies and routing protocals. I was in charge of the project, and I can honestly say this would never have been completed without hundreds of hours of work, thought and research from Caleb and Russell. So, actually, they do have the expertise to complete this test, and MetroFi should welcome the input, even if it’s different from what they hope to hear.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Metrofi is not an “infant” company. In fact they have deployed in several other locations….so how is the service there. I know a few folks who live in the areas so I will ask about.
Now as to the “Chief Surftheweb” witch hunt rant…yea that is about what I would expect for some folks. Thanks for making the point that even in a civil debate about something FACTS often get taken into account last…so sad..
Now, what is the City’s response to all this? What if the tests , and more importantly to Chief Surftheweb the user who will be using the service, show MetroFi did not meet the requirements set out by the legal documents?
What then? Has Logan gone on the record with a response to that?
-tomhiggins
April 6th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“Now, what is the City’s response to all this? What if the tests , and more importantly to Chief Surftheweb the user who will be using the service, show MetroFi did not meet the requirements set out by the legal documents?”
Same as the numerous Ricochet networks out there - dead carcasses. Or, the city operates it on their own for free. But it will doubtfully get repaired once you’ve factored in all the negativity this would bring.
My point is that “testing services” as a business model are counter-productive. If the city is that concerned with coverage they would be the network owner.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Perhaps then, Chief, you should be especially enamored by Russell and I, who are doing this testing for free, just because it is “fun”. It isn’t a business model for us and we don’t stand to profit. We just want to help the city of Portland make a wise decision (and have fun in the process).
August 26th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Just to follow up on this aspect of “fun”, I was recently reacquainted with a program called “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out”, an extended interview with the physicist Richard Feynman, e.g.:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8777381378502286852
Finding things out, using the necessary care to be confident in the results, being open to criticism and correction is an activity I commend to everyone.