The real “magic” is in defining what the meaning of the word ‘coverage” is.

Marks requirements and his goal was/ is “95% of urban areas and main roads within the 555 square mile area. I believe that is considerably different then “555 square miles of coverage”. Indeed, it leaves all of the geographic area within the 555 square miles that does not meet the criteria, without coverage. I suspect that the geographic area without coverage is considerably greater then the geographic area with coverage. At the end of the day, it met Marks needs and that is what is most important.

I agree with Mark Meier’s assessment of the failures in the muni WiFi market. I also applaud his diligence in setting a measurement standard that met his requirements.

I believe that statements like “555 square miles of coverage” need to be explained. Unchallenged hype and spin about coverage, throughput, etc, for both WiFi and WiMax has led to many a disillusioned customer. Had those failed enterprises folled Marks advice, ie identified a sustainable support and funding structure ,set specific goals that are reasonable in expectation and developed a methodology to verify the expectations they would have likely succeeded in there endeavor and I might be connected to a high speed WiFi network instead of this slow clunky Verizon network.

Thanks for the clarification !

Dan