Sonic.net proposed gigabit in SF with 170 above ground repeaters compared to AT&Ts 800+. That also was voted down.

It's not a sick joke, it's San Franciscan :/. I sometimes feel like we work in a city that's all things at once: tech bastion, hipster haven, and a home to a generation of hippies. There's a lot of culture and there's a part of it that hates ugly things and a part of it that hates technology and every time someone wants to build some cool tech like city wide wifi, this is the inevitable result.

The problem is that we grant each and every individual de facto filibuster power over any construction project. CEQA is so broad and vague that all you need to do is come up with some crazy, tenuous claim that the environment will be impacted in some way, and even if your claim has no merit and you can get no fellow citizens to support you, you still get to obstruct the development process for years.

Um you know that city wide wifi woudl require an insane amount of AP's and backhaul - hence why wimax doesnt seem to be going any where.

Insane is relative, backhaul is also relative.

I don't think WiMax was meant to solve the problems to which people have applied it. If you look at WiMax actual range, it's quite good, but the advertised range is at least double (hence all of the big ClearWire lawsuits).

I don't think setting up city wide wifi is unreasonable with present technology. I think it's an entirely attainable goal, the things that hold it back are bureaucracy and the same individuals who hold back things like project lightspeed.

But my broad point in response to your comment is that the benefit of saturating san francisco with AP's are manifold, whereas the costs and risks are minimal.

Sf has a population of over 6 and a half million and covers 600 square Km. I woudl love to see your estimate for how much that woudl cost to build and maintain.

Less than 100M to implement and under 10M to maintain per year.

I definitely don't think it's expensive compared to the benefits. Personally, if I'm pipe dreaming, I'd rather have ubiquitous 1gigabit fiber, which google pegged at 11Billion for almost all of the US to be covered.

You have to ask why they required those freestanding boxes, instead of negotiate access to basement utility areas in buildings across the network. Boxes like that may be necessary in less built up areas, but in densely built areas they're a cost-cutting measure.

Maybe it wouldn't be profitable if they had to deal with extortionate landlords, but on the other hand it'd seem likely you'd find a sufficient number of building owners that'd be happy to allow space for cheap or nothing in order to ensure great access.

They need 24-hour immediate access to any box. That means it has to be somewhere accessible. And they can't bury them, because they need ventilation, and the ventilation unit would have to go above ground, and would be even bigger than the utility box was.

The NIMBYs are pretty terrible. The best part is how you won't see a single solitary wind turbine in the "bay area" proper, but as soon as you start heading up Altamont on I-580, BAM everywhere. It's ok though, it's just the central valley out there, hicks deserve it.

This is just a sick joke, I hope?

These fools should be banned off into an Amish-like community.