The Top Five Misconceptions About the Success of Municipal Wireless Networks

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

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