« 0-200mph—Who’s the Big Dog? | Home | IBM Lotus Symphony Review »
Full Disclosure for Muni-WiFi
By Larry Hendrick | September 21, 2007
June 12, 2005 was the date I wrote my first article about the Municipal WiFi problem. That article asked twenty-five questions that needed to be answered about Muni WiFi, many of which remain unanswered to this day.
I addressed the topic of money (business model) and Muni WiFi in March of 2006 with an article titled Muni WiFi … A Fairy Tale. This article presented the case for the pricing structure for Internet services, and was a result of my working for an ISP for many years. All total, I have written or referenced 122 articles on the subject, bringing us to this TechNewsWorld two-part article. It includes many quotes from Glenn Fleishman, journalist, and David P. McClure, President and CEO of United States Internet Industry Association. They are both very knowledgeable on the subject of Municipal WiFi.
“BIG-CITY WIFI IS DEAD” … screams the opening sentence of the TechNewsWorld article, catching the attention of anyone with an interest in the wireless spectrum. Looking at the major cities with projects that are now on the rocks—Chicago, Houston, and San Francisco—the article’s participants discuss the reasons for the failure of this technology to deliver on the promises. McClure includes up the fact that the smaller cities, that have deployed the service in limited fashion, won’t reveal their subscriber numbers, which are extremely short of the original projections.
“It’s a ‘last 30 feet’ technology, not a ‘last mile’ technology” which is the same technical argument I’ve made for the last two years. Wifi was introduced as a wireless Internet technology for small areas. The technology took on a completely new meaning when companies selling the technology used the phrase “digital divide” as an into to meetings with government officials. That’s where the over-promise, under-deliver part of the story begins.
Cities bought the story hook, line, and sinker. They were going to blanket their cities with Wireless Internet, and provide it to the poor for free or at a reduced cost). Using trial installations in parks and libraries, Earthlink proved the technology would cover small areas with no obstacles.
In the TNW article, In-Stat senior network analyst, Daryl Schoolar, brings up the total lack of a need to cover these type areas anyway.
” … Instead muni-networks are building out coverage in parks and other public areas where In-Stat has yet to see much interest from end-users in using the network. They are spending millions of dollars to cover all those square miles where people have very little interest in the coverage,”
And to conclude, read what David P. McClure had to say (emphasis is mine):
E-Commerce News: Wireless: What’s Eating Citywide WiFi, Part 2
McClure characterized the muni WiFi experience of recent years as “a bad use of technology in pursuit of a socialist dream of free bread for the masses. Added to that was the nonsense that WiFi would somehow ‘heal the digital divide,’ spur business development and tourism, and do it all at no cost to consumers.” “I could drone on and on, but the reality is that our job was to expose muni WiFi for the hoax it was, and our job is done. City after city is taking a close look at reality and dumping their plans in favor of more realistic wireless Internet ventures. And we have moved on to battle other hoaxes plaguing our industry — the nonsensical ‘network neutrality,’ for example, and efforts by states and municipal governments to heap billions of dollars in local taxes on your broadband bill,” he added.
Topics: WiFi |
September 21st, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I think I saw a similar article by AP with the same message this week. Yea, it was on the local paper or TV site. Because it was AP, the article didn’t mention the Wi-max deal here in Grand Rapids.
Yea, muni-wi-fi smelled of something rotten from the beginning. You told em so, if they would only listen!
September 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Thanks Dave. I still think there is a place for 802.11x wireless, but not to cover a city. WiMax and the other two competing standards make more sense.
With WiMax, Intel has jumped on and will build support into their chipsets like they do WiFi now. That will make it easier for manufacturers to roll out the product once there are places to get online.
I’m excited about the future of wireless, and time will tell which type makes the most business sense. It’ll be fun to watch the developments in this field over the next year or so.
Have you seen any new information on the Grand Rapids deployment? I haven’t caught anything in my search alerts for a while.