Re: Misplaced Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [bob37-2 () bobf frankston com]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:20 AM
To: David Farber; 'ip'
Subject: RE: [IP] Misplaced Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out

I view this as good news since I argue (in http://www.frankston.com/?name=WiFiEdge) that what I'm now calling 
muni-bells are the wrong model. They are simply scaled down versions of the same carrier model that requires we buy 
services to pay for transport.

Who are the customers for these systems. If it's a digital divide problem then sharing access points is far more 
economical and reliable. If it's for those who can afford an extra connection then they are likely to be able to afford 
to cellular access (EVDO, HDSPA etc) and it makes more sense because then they can use a portable device to access the 
Internet at an incremental cost on their cell phone. You’re more likely to want to use a portable device than open up 
your laptop while talking down the street. And do you want to open up a browser to login to the muni-wireless when 
using a device. I wonder how many of these systems are being used for mundane projects like reading parking meters or 
monitoring traffic. If so then such applications might justify the infrastructure which can then be shared.

What these muni-bells don't give us is the ability to assume connectivity for something as simple as emergency 
signaling. We also can't assume coverage because the muni-bell model, as with the carrier model, would not take 
advantage of the all the existing access points.

The problem is that we try to extend a failed model – getting “free” transport if we buy enough services at a vastly 
inflated price. It’s fortunate that these are failing early because we see many FTTH projects declared as successes 
when they get funding and not when they really prove to be sustainable. Even when they are declared successes we don’t 
see what we are not getting – basic infrastructure. Instead we have speed that gives us more YouTube but not coverage.

The tragedy is that we have nearly 100% urban coverage if only we didn’t have the service model which eschews help from 
users.






-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 09:45
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out





March 22, 2008

Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out

By IAN URBINA

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/22wireless.html?ex=1363838400&en=bf9b948d31cd4df4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

>



PHILADELPHIA — It was hailed as Internet for the masses when

Philadelphia officials announced plans in 2005 to erect the largest

municipal Wi-Fi grid in the country, stretching wireless access over

135 square miles with the hope of bringing free or low-cost service to

all residents, especially the poor.



Municipal officials in Chicago, Houston, San Francisco and 10 other

major cities, as well as dozens of smaller towns, quickly said they

would match Philadelphia’s plans.



But the excited momentum has sputtered to a standstill, tripped up by

unrealistic ambitions and technological glitches. The conclusion that

such ventures would not be profitable led to sudden withdrawals by

service providers like EarthLink, the Internet company that had

effectively cornered the market on the efforts by the larger cities.



Now, community organizations worry about their prospects for helping

poor neighborhoods get online.



In Tempe, Ariz., and Portland, Ore., for example, hundreds of

subscribers have found themselves suddenly without service as

providers have cut their losses and either abandoned their networks or

stopped expanding capacity.



“All these cities had this hype hangover late last year when EarthLink

announced its intentions to pull out,” said Craig Settles, an

independent wireless consultant and author of “Fighting the Good Fight

for Municipal Wireless” (Hudson Publishing, 2006). “Now that they’re

all sobered up, they’re trying to figure out if it’s still possible to

capture the dream of providing affordable and high-speed access to all

residents.”



EarthLink announced on Feb. 7 that “the operations of the municipal Wi-

Fi assets were no longer consistent with the company’s strategic

direction.” Philadelphia officials say they are not sure when or if

the promised network will now be completed.



For Cesar DeLaRosa, 15, however, the concern is more specific. He said

he was worried about his science project on global warming.



“If we don’t have Internet, that means I’ve got to take the bus to the

public library after dark, and around here, that’s not always real

safe,” Cesar said, seated in front of his family’s new computer in a

gritty section of Hunting Park in North Philadelphia. His family is

among the 1,000 or so low-income households that now have free or

discounted Wi-Fi access through the city’s project, and many of them

worry about losing access that they cannot otherwise afford.



Philadelphia officials say service will not be disconnected.



“We expect EarthLink to live up to its contract,” said Terry Phillis,

the city’s chief information officer.



But when City Council leaders here held a hearing in December to

question EarthLink about how it intended to keep service running and

complete the planned network, the company failed to show up.



Officials in Chicago, Houston, Miami and San Francisco find themselves

in a similar predicament with EarthLink and other service providers,

and have all temporarily tabled their projects.



Part of the problem was in the business model established in

Philadelphia and mimicked in so many other cities, Mr. Settles said.



In Philadelphia, the agreement was that the city would provide free

access to city utility poles for the mounting of routers; in return

the Internet service provider would agree to build the infrastructure

for 23 free hotspots and to provide inexpensive citywide residential

service, including 25,000 special accounts that were even cheaper for

lower-income households.



[snip]



-------------------------------------------

Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now

RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/

Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

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