Comments on: Update on Lompoc municipal wireless network

By: Rackemup420

Rackemup420 — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:38:22 +0000

This lompocNet is the WORST internet I have ever used.

1) they tell you in the office that:
A. If you have atleast 4 bars on the receiver then you are guaranteed to get at least 50mb/s… BULLSHIT.

I have had this internet for 2 months now and I can safely say my AOL dial up was 10x faster… Now sure you could say it is my location… but… I live right next to a node that is not even 25 yards away, where as my friend lives about 100 yards away from the closest node and his speeds are about 10x faster than mine (I cant even download a 12mb update for a game..), which are still super slow…

For $16/month it is NOT worth it… You can pay 9 bucks for dial up and have a more consistent connection.

Right now im pinging 2.2kb/s to Google… that’s fucking pro… sad ass lompoc needs to get out of the 20th century and into the right way, and fire that tech guy he is awful….

By: lompocnetsux

lompocnetsux — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:24:57 +0000

i know this thread is pretty old but i have to say… lompoc internet is not worth it. i spoke to the wifi technician from the city and he told me that the network the city uses is about 1/12 of the power of the networks comcast or verizon use. so yeah it sux. youtube is pretty much useless as well as anything with flash. any websites with a lot of ads takes a long time. even wikipedia which is mostly just text can be slow. and games are completely out of the question. but at the same time i realize that you get what you pay for and for 16 dollars a month….i guess its worth it. but i use the internet a lot so it’s pretty mind-numbing having to wait. i would only recommend this wifi service to people who dont use the internet that often. or people still living in 1996. for everyone else just pay the extra amount and get reliable high speed internet

By: c woof

c woof — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:28:59 +0000

To answer Shines question: the $10/30 days fee covers just the service– you provide your own receiver/router or use your laptop + wireless and they give you help setting it up. The $16/month “family plan” covers everything–ie, they provide the router, you merely go home, plug it in and hook up your computer, or so they tell me. No software, no installation necessary. The “family plan” is for those who use the service primarily at home on desktops. The $10/30 day plan is for those who use a laptop and are free to move throughout the city, like to coffee shops, etc. So, one’s access, the other is hardware+access.

By: Ksenia Coffman

Ksenia Coffman — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:01:28 +0000

Good luck “using the Wi-Fi network for video surveillance”. I wonder what the throughput is on the network? It cannot be more than a few Mbps — not sufficient for video surveillance.

By: Shines

Shines — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:46:29 +0000

I have to say I’m curious about one thing:

1. $16 per month
2. $10 for 30 days

So, to use credit card to pay will save $6 per month? I guess it’ll be strange if

$16 per month (a month is of 30 or 31 days, except Feb) competes with $10 for 30 days.

By: Esme Vos

Esme Vos — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:57:25 +0000

Jack,

I think that’s why they are pushing the city to use the network for municipal applications. If the city can save money and improve operators at the same time, by using the network, it becomes more valuable to the community.

But I do agree with you: they should have gone ahead and deployed FTTH. The “dirty” tricks of cable operators (and telecom incumbents”, which is to announce rollouts of broadband networks whenever a city decides to deploy FTTH, are nothing new. This happens also in France. But the city should have simply gone ahead. Once more, short term thinking and the refusal to invest for the long term will hurt American communities. Meanwhile, cities in Europe are deploying FTTH and very soon, their residents will have 100 Mbps symmetrical service, instead of the asymmetrical downlink/uplink networks that American cable and telecom operators are rolling out here.

By: Jack Simpson

Jack Simpson — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:04:34 +0000

Don’t want to be a nay-sayer, but 1,450 subscribers @ $16/month = $278,400 a year in revenue, with an operating cost of $800,000 a year. Doesn’t seem like a success to me. They should have done FTTH, now that would have been a real asset to the community.

By: Matthew Galvin

Matthew Galvin — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 06:27:13 +0000

I’d call it a success – it definitely depends on the subscription base for long term, but I’d buy – if I was stuck in Lompoc!

By: Ken Biba

Ken Biba — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:37:27 +0000

This certainly sounds like a success. The revenue from user access clearly does justify the cost … but wireless AMR and public safety could easily tip the financial scales.

It would be very interesting to put together the complete financial balance sheet for all of these applications.