Re: The Top Five Misconceptions About the Success of Municipal Wireless Networks

[David Farber <dfarber () cs cmu edu>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Frankston" <bob37-2 () bobf frankston com>
Date: October 7, 2007 8:09:45 PM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, <ip () v2 listbox com>
Cc: "'Dewayne Hendricks'" <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: RE: [IP] The Top Five Misconceptions About the Success of  
Municipal Wireless Networks

I've come to believe that the idea of a municipal network is flawed  
in the same way that a municipal light company is. It should be seen  
as contributing to a common infrastructure and not as a service and  
it should be a apart from the coverage provided by the many local  
access points. There is no "business model" anymore than there is a  
"business model" for roads. One can make a case for municipal  
connectivity but it is not a business model as such.

The problem in Perkoswki's defense is that it is all couched in terms  
of a service business model and not a connectivity model. He  
correctly recognizes that wireless connectivity is important but  
fails to escape from telecom.

This is why we need protocols that enable compositing connectivity  
from the edge rather than having a (another) local phone company. We  
can then realize the value of a common infrastructure.

More in http://www.frankston.com/?name=WiFiEdge and http:// 
www.frankston.com/?Name=InternetDynamic.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dfarber () cs cmu edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 11:20
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] The Top Five Misconceptions About the Success of  
Municipal Wireless Networks

I am in Portland OR where the WiFi net seems to be largely inop in
downtown at least and the supplier talks about severe financial
problems. djf


Begin forwarded message:

From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
Date: October 7, 2007 11:07:42 AM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The Top Five Misconceptions About the Success
of Municipal Wireless Networks

[Note:  This item comes from reader Ken DiPietro.  DLH]

The Top Five Misconceptions About the Success of Municipal Wireless
Networks

By Mike Perkowski
<http://www.bbwexchange.com/pubs/2007/10/04/page1423-1057917.asp>
What do you call a market that?:

Has grown from zero to nearly $400 million in just four years (in the
U.S. alone);
Is poised to grow by more than 35 percent in each of the next four
years;
Has created new, incremental revenue opportunities for wireless
Internet Service Providers, applications developers and IT solutions
providers, and;
Has helped local governments save tens of millions of dollars - or
more - in expenses and improved operating efficiencies.
Normally, companies would be giddy about participating in a market
with that much going for it. And yet despite all those attributes,
municipal wireless broadband is beset by negative press coverage and
mounting questions about the market's viability. Why this dramatic
disconnect?

First things first. Most importantly, everyone should take all the
breathless, front-page coverage of this market's death knell with a
very healthy grain of salt. The present angst about this market
reminds us of Mark Twain's pithy commentary: "Rumors of my demise are
greatly exaggerated." As journalists ourselves, we understand how
stories about market turmoil and uncertainty generate interest and
readership. We also know that these stories, especially when printed
without market context and fact-based analysis, can easily create the
misimpression that successful municipal wireless deployments don't
exist; that the technology doesn't work, and that billions of public
monies are being sent down a sinkhole. That simply isn't reality. But
successful projects don't make the front page of the USA Today, and
they don't get local politicians all riled up just in time for the
next news cycle.

Of course, this market is not without its challenges. Companies,
investors and government officials are rethinking their approaches to
municipal wireless as a way to bring cost-efficient Internet access
to consumers, businesses and government agencies. And the technology
has been over-hyped by all concerned, creating the prototypical gap
between people's expectations and market reality. (Sound like any
other recent technologies you might have experienced in the past
generation of American life, like cell phones, cable TV and online
shopping? If you remember, those and other new technologies weren't
without hiccups in their early days, either.)

But let's not let this expectation gap consume the market. Let's
address the issues head on, particularly in light of what's actually
happening in communities all across the country - and even around the
world. Let's expose some of the widely held perceptions and talk
about the market reality.

Perception #1: Municipal wireless networking doesn't work. This is an
easy one to dispel, backed up by our own reporting and first-hand
feedback from officials in hundreds of U.S. communities (as well as
the companies hired to build and operate those networks). Just ask
public officials in New Orleans, where in the face of devastation
caused by Hurricane Katrina temporary WiFi-based networks restored
critical communications and facilitated public safety efforts. Or
Minneapolis, where the city's brand-new wireless network was
instrumental in helping rescue workers and a host of public employees
deal with the immediate aftermath of the tragic bridge collapse. (At
our upcoming MuniWireless industry conference in Santa Clara, Calif.,
on Oct. 21-23, we'll focus heavily on places where municipal wireless
is working and providing real value to the community.)

Conservatively, we believe there are several hundred towns, cities
and counties where municipal wireless networks have been in place -
often for years - and have returned tangible, measurable benefits for
their communities. Some of them have been well documented: Corpus
Christi, Texas; Providence, Rhode Island; Phoenix, Arizona, and
Dallas, Texas are just a handful of well-known, good-sized
communities where real applications have been deployed and are
working to make local government more efficient. There are countless
other smaller communities you may never have heard of, such as Racine
County, Wisconsin; Umatilla County, Oregon, and Chaska, Minnesota,
where the same things are happening. A big reason why: These and many
other municipalities have deployed their networks primarily or
exclusively for government use - not necessarily for public access
(free or otherwise). While the public access stuff is sexy and
magnetic in drawing press coverage and public interest, it's the meat-
and-potatoes municipal applications like public safety, building
inspection and meter reading that have a proven track record.

Perception #2: Municipalities are competing with the private sector
in building and operating their own networks. This is a canard, pure
and simple. As we detailed in our recent research report "2007
Municipal Wireless Business Models," the overwhelming majority of
municipal wireless networks are outsourced, at least in part, to the
private sector - both in building and running the network. There were
a few examples of local governments taking the initiative to put
their own networks in place - primarily in rural or under-populated
areas where service providers didn't deem it cost-effective to
address during the market's early stage. But for the most part,
municipalities are working very closely with the private sector,
either in so-called public-private partnerships (usually involving
mounting rights and/or anchor tenancy by the local government) or in
straight-up outsourcing arrangements. A few advocacy groups have
attempted to convey the misimpression that municipal wireless is some
form of anti-capitalistic threat, but nothing could be further from
the truth. Most municipalities lack the technical resources, the RF
design skills or the capital to build and operate these networks on
their own - don't worry everyone, there's plenty of business
opportunity for the private sector.

Perception #3: Service providers can't make money in municipal
wireless. This perception is certainly understandable, given the
problems EarthLink has encountered with some of its municipal
deployments. But let's not confuse EarthLink's corporate challenges -
which have at least as much to do with other factors as it does with
municipal wireless - with how all other service providers are doing
in this area. Especially in smaller communities not yet targeted by
the largest, incumbent providers, service providers are honing their
business models, taking prudent steps toward managing their
deployments and are showing a profit on their projects.

Perception #4: Public access projects have been a failure. The jury
is still out on whether the concept of free public usage of municipal
wireless networks - whether we're talking about downtown hot spots or
citywide wireless blanketing the full community. Some cities, such as
St. Cloud, Florida, and Mountain View, California, have had free
networks up and running for some time, and many others have more
limited initiatives providing free access on college campuses
(Phoenix), downtown business districts (Annapolis, Maryland) and city-
owned airports (Tampa, Florida). Regardless of whether wireless
public access is ultimately free, subsidized or market-rate, there is
little doubt that some form of wireless public access will be a key
component to every community's broadband architecture - probably
piggybacking on infrastructure already installed and used for
municipal applications.

Of course, if we can just keep local politicians from falling into
the trap of "irrational exuberance" when it comes to hyping what
municipal wireless will do - and importantly, how fast and how
extensively its benefits will be realized - we will be able to
continue growing this market without unrealistic expectations.

Perception #5: Big-city wireless initiatives are doomed to failure.
This perception is understandable, because of government bureaucracy,
technical challenges, legal and political roadblocks, and the sheer
magnitude of big-city deployments. There have been high-profile
setbacks in San Francisco, Chicago and a few other large communities,
and it's easy to paint all big-city initiatives with the proverbial
broad brush. But let's keep in mind that even in these and other big
cities, there already are wireless networks up and running - perhaps
started even as low-profile skunk works projects - for applications
like meter reading, video surveillance and wireline voice and cell
phone replacement.

Again, let's not bury our heads in the sand. This market is
confronting important challenges and questions on everything from
successful business models to developing deployment best practices to
overcoming our own "hype machines." Some projects have not met their
initial objectives and have gone back to the drawing board, while
others are struggling to overcome technical and financial hurdles.
But let's not lose track of an indisputable fact: Hundreds - maybe
even thousands - of these projects are succeeding, and the market
continues to grow by impressive rates - even in the face of recent
negative publicity. At our upcoming industry conference in Silicon
Valley on Oct. 21-23, our content program will address these issues
head-on, by emphasizing deployments that have worked and are
delivering on the promise of municipal wireless.

Let's keep it all in perspective: This is a young, still-developing
market. While many projects are succeeding, others will hit snags and
others still will languish for any number of reasons. That's
understandable, and it's even good - it's called learning.

Remember that we've seen this before in virtually every corner of the
high-technology marketplace for decades. Market research and advisory
firm Gartner Inc. even gave this phenomenon a name: The Trough of
Disillusionment. That's the stage of market development when the
realities of implementing new technology overcomes the early-stage
hype that inevitably gets built up when exciting new technologies
come to the forefront.

This is an exciting, high-growth market that has the potential to
change the way we live and work in our communities, and to make our
governments more efficient. There will be bumps in the road along the
way, and lessons to be learned every day. Our advice to
municipalities, service providers and technology companies is simple
and straightforward: Don't shrink from the challenges - seize the
opportunity. The benefits of municipal wireless far exceed the risk.

Mike Perkowski is chief operating officer of MuniWireless LLC, the
leading integrated media company for the municipal wireless broadband
marketplace.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com