Suspiciously like this story:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/14/london_wifi/

C'mon subeditors!

How can a city (London) 609 sq miles have more wifi spots than New York city with a size of 3,352sq miles ? Did the researcher also go to New York and drive around with his equipment to find out how many WiFi spots there are in that city?

That sub-title is the worse prune on words ever.

Wondering if the survey done in NYC wasn't really just Manhattan?

Were there really only 6300 APs in all over the city? I would think there would be more, being that the city completely covers 5 of the most densely packed counties in the US. Can there really be only 6300 APs serving a city of more than 8 million people?

"Don't WEP for me Argentina" - is so terrible it seems to be causing me some a serious headache! I think we should ban all wifi puns from now on for the sake of our children.

that some european cable operators are providing free wifi routers with security disabled for every new subscriber. These hotspots get installed and everybody could use them while the owner doesn't even know they are set to open. In the usa, wifi is not so widespread and when someone has a router they usually set the encryption and even go as far as to hide it from scans. In eastern europe, you can find an average of 6-7 open hotspots at any part of the city with some high value residential areas having more than two dozen on the same default channel (looks like there everybody who ordered cabe tv and net access got the gift router). Knowing what is good for wifi (one base station for a given area and a given channel), having so many is clearly degrading performance. In general having more wifi hotspots than gsm mobile towers is bad for network performance.