« links for 2006-11-02 | Home | links for 2006-11-03 »
Houston Muni WiFi Project May be in Trouble
By Larry Hendrick | November 2, 2006
In May, Houston Mayor Bill White, and his IT Director Richard Lewis, hosted a teleconference with local area podcasters about the newly identified need in Houston for a public, city-driven WiFi initiative.
That loud ‘thump’ you hear is the sound of another muni WiFi project hitting the ground … not running.
This project was announced with enthusiastic fanfare. I recorded that conference call and made it available on this website. If you missed that podcast with Mayor White, you can get the MP3 recording here.
Fast forward to this week which brings several newspaper stories, and the terminology has altered for those who read between the lines.
The Mayor is asking for help from building owners in the city, because the city-owned light poles apparently are not sufficient for the project. He even knows the price building owners should charge for their roof access.
One of the selling legs for this entire project was to lower the cost for Internet access. It was repeated many times, even on the teleconference call. Here is what Richard Lewis is quoted saying in the Houston Chronicle on Monday October 30, 2006. (The bold is mine)
Citywide WiFi in Houston closer to reality
The vendor would finance the system without tax money. Access would be free for city government and in several public places, including parks and libraries. Most residents and businesses still would pay to access the high-speed network, although the city hopes service would be cheaper.
At the time the original statements were made, at&t was offering DSL at $12.99 per month, with no sign up fees, plus a free modem. Now Internet can be bought as cheaply as $10.00, and “the city hopes service would be cheaper.” That’s a long way from the Mayor’s original proposal.
Wednesday, November 1, 2006, another Chronicle story quotes Mayor White and others with completely different focuses.
The second leg this project was free wifi service for the city in exchange for light pole access for the service provider. In the May teleconference, I specifically asked Richard Lewis about the city requiring the winning bidder to provide the service to the city for free, and was assured the city-owned light pole swap was an adequate in-kind trade. My cypherin’ showed differently, but he insisted and sounded annoyed when I pressed the question.
Now Mayor White states, “City government also might pay a below-market price.” In the quote above, Richard still thinks the city is getting the service for free. It appears some clarification is needed on this point.
Houston’s contract requires exclusive access for one vendor. Other cities’ wifi projects are offering the light pole access at discounted rates, and are not offering exclusive clauses. This means there will be no competition, other than reselling someone else’s service, if you call that competition. (For a fine example of this type of competition, look at our Texas deregulated electric industry.)
White solicits ideas, space to help city WiFi network
The goal of the network, which would blanket Houston’s 600 square miles, is to make Internet access cheaper for residents and businesses. White envisions offering network access for free in certain public places, including parks and libraries, and at discounted rates for residents in low-income areas. City government also might pay a below-market price.
Local politicians and community and business leaders were enthusiastic about the network’s potential. It would provide opportunities for Houston’s technology sector and cut costs for other businesses, said Umesh Verma, chairman of the Greater Houston Partnership’s technology infrastructure committee.
“There will be a whole new wave of the way we live and the way we work and the way we play,” he said.
City emergency workers and private business employees, for example, would be able to tap into the network from their vehicles to find their destinations.
Kevin Whited at BlogHouston is trying to figure out what the statement, “There will be a whole new wave of the way we live and the way we work and the way we play,” means. I hope he gets it figured out, because I am baffled as to what Umesh Verma means.
Let me say that NO BUSINESS IN HOUSTON, THAT DEPENDS ON THE INTERNET FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD, WILL USE WIFI AS THEIR CONNECTION TO THE WORLD. It’s just not going to happen.
Wifi is unstable and unreliable, just ask my wife.
Topics: Business, Technology, WiFi |
January 19th, 2007 at 7:49 am
There was bound to be a letdown as the city had to make practical decisions. pulling off municipal for houston is a major undertaking; frankly, i wouldn’t have minded a more gradual approach: start with downtown, then airport, etc.
SBC’s wifi has increased in price to $19/month–and of course, that price is a come on. It means having to obtain a landline as well (and hopefully other phone services as well).
The justification for munwifi is not only providing lower cost alternative, but providing AN alternative. Not only do you have the $20-30 for landline/DSL, but the cost of roaming services–which pretty much are at $40 except for prepaid cellphones. At the moment, I’m using skype on my pda. It would really help to have more wifi hotspots around the city. The real mystery to me is why cellphone companies haven’t come down on price with their data plans yet. to use the data plan, expect your total cellphone charges to be minimum of $60 for not even a good plan.
On the other hand, I can’t help wondering if private wifi solutions wouldn’t have accomplished the same thing faster and for less.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Thanks for the comment Robert. There are many issues, as you point out, but you no longer have to buy a at&t telephone line to purchase DSL from them.
One of the requirements of the Bell South acquisition was to offer naked DSL. You are only charged for the Internet.
As for alternatives, 90% of the country has access to multiple providers. Some are better than others, and they are priced differently, but the competition is driving the costs down.
Here’s a question. If private business sees city-wide wifi as a profitable venture, who will stop them from filling the gap. The main reasons the companies bid on the RFPs from cities is getting exclusive rights … just like the cable companies a few decades ago. How’s that working?
Also, with the exclusive rights, time passes and they “hope” technology improvements will appear to make the job possible and profitable. So far that has not happened.
No muni-wifi company is turning a profit, even with the exclusive rights.
I am very pro-wifi, paid or free, but just see a mess of problems with the government getting involved.
Sorry for the semi-rant, but I just sat through a meeting on this subject and got the run-around to every question I asked, and several out-right lies. It’s really pathetic.