Sacramento paper writes about problems with scope of muni-Fi plan: The Sacramento network, currently unfunded by the consortium that won the bid, appears to be designed for 2005 network specifications. The reporter provides a great run-through of how such networks could work. With 18 to 20 nodes, this is a non-starter for indoor coverage. Which then begs the question of why build it without anchor tenancy and real applications committed to by the city?
And that reminds me of Wireless Silicon Valley: A similar set of partners won the bid for Wireless Silicon Valley as in Sacramento. (Cisco, IBM, Intel, Azulstar, and Seakay in Sacramento; all but Intel in WSV.) The lead, Azulstar, can't get $500,000 to build the pilot stages, without which no more money is likely to be forthcoming. Cisco may pony up something, but wouldn't comment in this article about how much, and it's clearly not "most of it."
Plano, Tex., now limits Wi-Fi vision: A deal with MetroFi went south when MetroFi wanted anchor tenancy. Now RedMoon is putting Wi-Fi in a few locations for the city.
Two Calif. shuttle buses get Wi-Fi: Shuttling to SFO from Santa Rosa--home of Charles "Sparky" Schulz's ice-skating rink--and need to make some use of those wasted two hours? Airport Express, the service not the Apple product, has put Wi-Fi on board with the help of local provider Sonic.net. The provider is offering the service free as a promotion.