Meraki Madness February 8, 2007
Posted by Tim Schneider in Digital Divide, Peer Production of Infrastructure.trackback
My friend and fellow former Public Knowledge intern Bill Herman (Bill’s blog title is the reverse-inspiration for the title of this one) wrote about the NY Times editorial on the Meraki mini a couple days ago. Bill’s posts at Public Knowledge gained something of a following this summer, including extended debates with Tim Lee at Tech Liberation Front and Ed Felten at Freedom to Tinker, and he’s singlehandedly responsible for the “Series of Tubes” Ted Stevens meme this summer, thanks to some handy work with a digital recorder. If you listen closely to the recording, you can actually hear him. Bill’s blog is now on my blogroll, I think I’m going to make a special category for Friends/Colleagues . . .
The NY Times editorial, written by Randall Stross, a business professor at San Jose State, basically reads like a press release for Meraki, paired with a skeptical look at muni wireless networks and the obligatory nod to the broadband digital divide. As I commented on Bill’s blog, because these are only wifi-based I think it’s a mistake to characterize the Meraki Mini as a solution to broadband access issues in anything more than densely populated urban areas. It works best in siutations like the one describerd in the article, NetEquality’s mesh networks to cover low-income housing projects. And I think Stross could have made his point about how cool Meraki’s products are without taking pot shots at muni deployments.
There’s a lot of similarities between products like Meraki’s and the type of products listed on EFF’s Endangered Gizmos list. The Meraki Mini has significant legal uses, but telcos could make a compelling case for strictly licensing or making illegal these devices, which–if used widely enough–could break many a business model (not to mention blatantly violate most ISP’s Terms of Service). Imagine if everyone in a neighborhood bought Minis or Outdoors (which are apparently fairly cheap) and transformed their Verizon FIOS network into a Wifi cloud covering the neighborhood. This would be amazing, but I doubt it would last long.
Also missing still is the incentive (a la FON) or requisite community to get enough people to use it to make a viable mesh.
For a good overview of some of the network architecture issues involved in setting up mesh networks, check out this white paper. (pdf) (and read it with a somewhat skeptical eye, BelAir has a dog in this fight . . .)
technorati tags:billherman, nytimes, eff, meraki, muniwifi, edfelten, randallstross, mesh, wifi
The beauty of Meraki is the simplicity of the product and the powerful but easy to use management software. A third party antenna (24 dBi directional) can extend the range for miles.
Currently, Meraki is still in beta testing, so you have to sign up and buy hardware for personal use. This is a barrier of entry to the common person that wants to go to a brick and mortar store and buy a wireless router for forty dollars.
Also, don’t forget this company is backed by Google, *the* 800 pound gorilla of the IT world.
If it is used in a commercial venture with a T1 backbone, then it is legal internet access and does not violate the terms of use like a home user with a private FIOS line.
Besides, if you go to any college town you can find many unsecured wireless networks with the default SSID from students using wireless routers and broadband access.
Miles? Using what? Not wifi . . .
I’d be really interested in seeing the management software. Is that what NetEquality uses for its online network status, etc?
Of course, everyone’s backed by google these days. Or hoping to be.
I think your mention of open wireless networks is spot-on. This is something that people want to do (though with enough security scares, they might not), and the question becomes, what are the constraints that pipe providers will want to place on sharing of their pipe? Is this something they can control, even? In a more competitive market, we might see providers compete on user extensability, but we’re not there yet.
That’s the difference, though. Is this just a niche device that meets the needs of apartment buildings and dense community groups? Or is it transformative, changing the way we think about infrastructure the same way p2p changed how we think about distribution?
Yes miles. Using wifi. How about 173 miles, without amplifiers? http://www.wilac.net/descargas/documentos/EnlaceAguila_Baul_EN.pdf
The Meraki Dashboard management software isn’t the same as what NetEquality uses for it’s online network status. They developed that software themselves and made it available on netequality.net. There are a few screenshots of Meraki dashboard on http://www.meraki.net
As the national broadband providers try to stop customers from sharing their connections, I think the smaller regional ISPs will try to differentiate themselves by specifically allowing sharing.
With the low cost of Meraki hardware, low power consumption, zero end user configuration, wide input voltage range and user replaceable antenna, I don’t see why the Meraki isn’t suited for rural area deployment. High gain directional antennas can create long range links for miles. Once the signal reaches it’s destination, additional Merkai Minis can distribute the signal around the city/village/area.
What Meraki doesnt tell you up front is that there is a manditory 20% monthly fee for every paid subscription you have. For example, say you have 1000 customers paying $10 a month, that means that you get $18000 gross, and Meraki gets $2000 a month from you, just for using their shoddy restricting “dashboard” program. It’s highway robbery i tell ya! This business model will be their achilies heel.