MetroFi Receives Rubber Stamp
Posted by Caleb Phillips on 11 April 2007We just heard that Uptown Services has finished their report, and provided it to the city. In sum, their report gives the MetroFi network a passing grade, which has convinced the city to apparently simultaneously issue a certificate of acceptance to MetroFi based on the recommendation of project manager, Logan Kleier. Although we have not seen the full report from Uptown, we have a few comments on the rationale for acceptence. The bulk of the results from Uptown generally agree with our results. The results for network availibility, for instance, match closely with ours. The one clear exception is coverage. Mr. Kleier reports:
Uptown services data show that over 95% of outdoor coverage areas receieve a -79 dBm signal or greater. According to internal MetroFi data, -79 dBm is the minimum signal strength threshold necessary to connect to a MetroFi access point at 1 Mbps modulation rate. This exceeds the minimum RFP metric of 90% coverage in outdoor areas of the proof of concept.
There are a few problems with this statement. We were surprised to read the value -79 dBm, which was not documented in any RFP or contract that we are aware of. Further, the value of -79 dBm, without being qualified by a description of client hardware, or statistical demonstration that this correlates with the required 64 Kbps upstream and 64 Kbps downstream connection, is completely meaningless. The original RFP clearly indicates in Section 2.2.1.5, that the intention is to provide connections to lowest common denominator devices. At best, signal strength is half of the needed information to estimate connectivity coverage. Our methodology, in contrast, measured the ability to acheive a connection. Lastly, to use a value provided by MetroFi to test the MetroFi network, and to trust it blindly, is clearly not independent.
At this point, the MetroFi network has been rubber-stamped and will proceed forward. We are disappointed that the city chose to approve a network which has garnered much public skepticism immediately, and without an opportunity for peer-review or public comment. At best, this seems to indicate a substantial lack of due-dilligence. We look forward to studying the full report, and hope that it includes a clear description of Uptown’s testing methodologies and their collected data. We intend to finish our report, which is nearing completion, and will publish it here as soon as it’s complete.