Harold Feld on the dangers of incumbents getting into muni Wi-Fi
Harold Feld has written an excellent piece on the dangers of using an incumbent like AT&T or a cable company to deploy and run a citywide wireless broadband network. I urge everyone to read it and comment below.Harold Feld has written an excellent piece on the dangers of using an incumbent like AT&T or a cable company to deploy and run a citywide wireless broadband network. I urge everyone to read it and comment below.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Y’all remember how AT&T (under its old name SBC) launched over a hundred lobbyists into the Texas legislature to kill muni broadband in TX? How it tried to kill muni broadband in Indiana? Not just once, but twice? Guess what? AT&T has now cut a deal to build a muni wifi system in Springfield, Il. The article quotes an AT&T spokescritter as saying that AT&T expects to close many more such deals, and will seek them out where it makes economic sense.”
“Whoa! What happened to all of that rhetoric about the brave incumbent telco capitalist captain of industry going eyeball to eyeball with the evil Socialist menace of a publicly financed Internet? Answer: increasingly, the incumbents have realized this is a losing issue for them and have decided to figure out how to make money out of it.”
“While I take this as the latest and most potent sign that the move to outright kill muni broadband has run out of steam, I think a note of caution is advisable as well. Some victory snark and reflections on the future challenges for both muni broadband and other forms of community-based broadband below.”
To continue reading Harold’s article, click here.
.gif)
The City of Riverside is in negotiations with AT&T for a City-Wide WiFI project here along with two other companies. While AT&T certainly is the lowest risk to municipalities, clear business terms and conditions are required to ensure success.
Steve, this is not about AT&T — this is about a crusade with folks like Harold and other regular pundits here.
The comments regarding AT&T in this, as well as other coverage on their recent project are simply unfair and mix-in prior issues in exchange for the opportunity to get on the soapbox once more.
AT&T’s entry into this business is a good event, it validates the market and shows the technology has legs. Afterall, say what you want — but these guys are serious players when they enter a market and know a thing or two about building and operating mission critical networks… how many times in your life have you failed to get a dialtone?
Marty - although I agree with you about AT&T’s late entry gives more “validation” to muni-wireless, I think you overlook the main issue that some of us “pundits” (who are in some cases more “expert” then some self-proclaimed and industry experts out there are) see in the action of AT&T.
The main flaw in your observation is that you fail to see that it is NOT a good event. A good event would be if AT&T took the initiative and were in the forefront of implmenting the technology rather than waiting for someone else to establish the beach heads and then come in later to claim a “new” market that they were too shy to invest in until someone else showed them there was a market there.
The exact same thing happened with DSL in the Ameritech region. CLECs came in first and identified the market, targeted a new market segment that was not identified by the incumbent only to be decimated after the incumbent phone company figured out that it was a market they should have gotten into earlier. The incumbent put on various pressures to force the competition out.
Incumbents are not risk takers or innovators and will wait long before committing any resources until a market is labeled a “sure thing”. The problem is that the incumbents could update the whole network infrastructure much faster than a couple of small start-ups.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the time to wait for them when other countries are moving full speed ahead in adding new infrastructure as a competitive advantage to their economic development.
And yes, I have worked on the planning and design of mission critical networks as well as multi-million dollar lawsuits involving them so I speak from 20+ years of experience and not from a soapbox.
First the incumbents are lambasted for NOT building. Now they are lambasted for building.
Can you say paranoid?
James, I think you mostly misunderstood my comments (or perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough).
Regarding AT&T, my first comment was intended to jab at the constant intermingling in the press between their efforts to stop municipally funded/operated networks in their service footprint and the (separate topic) use of Citywide Wi-Fi as an access method to improve their reach, gain subscribers, and enable new services.
Two different things, and should be treated as such. Fair enough to observe the two sides, but don’t mix the sides in order to create a story. For example headlines and stories along the lines of “AT&T Stops hating MuniFi, does an about-face” are not accurate or fair. They never chased Earthlink or MetroFi, never bashed the technology… they argued and fought cities owning/operating networks which would compete against their services in areas they have incumbency.
As for if its “good” or “bad” that AT&T has entered this market? — this board clearly has an “it’s bad” bias and I’m not going down that road again, mostly because regardless of how salient or practical the arguments, the responses argue about how great the alternative is… only problem is the alternative IS NOT HAPPENING ENOUGH TO CHANGE ANYTHING!
So, despite the obvious benefits of deploying wireless access — fast deployment, low cost, ability to cover more sooner, new applications, enablement of free and low-cost services, etc. — its not good enough if any large service provider is at the helm.
Personally, I find this short-sighted, especially when people like yourself make comments like “we don’t have time to wait” — then as well capitalized efforts like AT&T, Wireless SV, etc. come into play, the complaint is they’re just capitalists and will surely screw the public and little guys.
As for your comments regarding incumbents, speed of movement, and innovation. I think even you contradict yourself on that argument…
Let’s face the facts! SBC(at&t) does not want local governments or other businesses competing. DSL has become a great source of revenue for the ILEC’s and they want to keep it that way. In the states where they were successful in pressuring the government to pass laws that make it extremely difficult for anyone to come in and do business, companies are finding the loopholes and starting to progress. ILEC’s have hurt the expansion of wireless Broadband. They need to support it and jump on to the open access networks to offer an added service with little or no CAPX. Wake up and move on!!!!
I think Randy has it right — incumbents just don’t want competition slicing up the pie. Laws that protect slow-moving companies are great for the stock holders but it kills us all from a global competitiveness standpoint. Sorry but I and others cannot afford that.
What happens - look at FORD and GM. Instead of coming up with quality products over the years, their marketshares have been decimated. Now they are thinking of merging to save themselves. As one of my colleagues said- maybe they just should have taken a TOYOTA Camry and figured out how to make it cheaper (but with the same or better quality)
As for Marty comments - Read what I wrote. Don’t add things that I never said, nor implied.
I never said that “they” are “just capitalists and will surely screw the public and the little guys.”
They want protectionism to protect obsolete business models and I have been consistent in my writings about that.
If you are for that Marty - you don’t have a clue what capitalism is. If AT&T was to embrace upgrading the infrastructure and doing an FTTP approach, they would be applauded as making a huge investment to keeping ahead of everyone.
My comments stand and ring very clear:
Incumbents are not risk takers or innovators and will wait long before committing any resources until a market is labeled a “sure thing”.
Where does it say they are out to screw the public and the little guy? You made that inference. I am simply looking at FACT and ACTIONS - or inaction.
I stated that it would be good if the incumbents took the lead because they HAVE the most money and resources to do the job. Instead, they are trying to protect and milk obsolete infrastructure that is now starting to fade against progress made in countries that were once considered “third world”. Take a look beyond the borders Marty.
You find things short sighted? First, get some glasses so you can read what is written.
I said this in 1984 and it still rings very true - Leading-Edge Organizations do not maintain their position using Trailing-Edge technologies.