Opinion: What municipalities should be asking in citywide Wi-Fi planning
There is a seemingly steady stream of skepticism in the media and elsewhere about some of the early deployments of muniwireless networks. This is healthy and needed and it’s important that we point out problems so that we can fix them, as long as we view things in the context of problem-solving and not in the context of fear-mongering. There is a seemingly steady stream of skepticism in the media and elsewhere about some of the early deployments of muniwireless networks. This is healthy and needed and it’s important that we point out problems so that we can fix them, as long as we view things in the context of problem-solving and not in the context of fear-mongering.
The reality, of course, is that every early technology market has problems, often severe ones, that take time and energy and money to iron out. There is always fluidity in the technology and in the early business models and in applications and in the ways in which the technology is sold and deployed. I remember six years ago there was the “collapse” of the Internet. Some collapse.
What concerns me, however, about the municipal wireless market is the quick rush to judgment and the constant raising of the question: “Why do municipalities need to do this?” I don’t want to dismiss the question, because it has some legitimacy, and all municipalities should address it for themselves before moving forward.
But the question should also be viewed in this context: Municipal wireless networks are a new venture for municipalities and one in which the potential benefits have been mischaracterized ‚Äö?Ñ?¨ free Internet for everyone! ‚Äö?Ñ?¨ and the potential challenges have been underplayed. That’s one of the reasons where seeing so much movement in business models.
The question should also be viewed in this context: If the muni doesn’t take charge of the network, who will? Who will make sure there’s a network in place to keep police on the street, as in Providence? Who will make sure there’s a network in place to read gas and water meters, saving the city precious time, resources and money, as in Corpus Christi? Who will make sure there’s a network in place to address the needs of individuals who are otherwise marginalized by society? Who will worry about creating an environment in the community that encourages growth and innovation and a welcoming of new technologies?
These, to me, are the key questions. The other stuff, as they have in the past, will get worked out though some combination of time and money and genius and experimentation and experience. Maybe the business models will change, maybe WiMAX will usurp Wi-Fi down the road, maybe there will be whole new technologies that haven’t even been considered yet.
What’s important is that municipalities don’t get so caught up in the reverse hype and fear and skepticism that they lose sight of the incredible opportunity they have to take control of their own destinies and create something of real and lasting value to their residents and communities. The question shouldn’t be: Why do you need to do a municipal network?
- – - – - -
Al Perlman is one of the founders of Microcast Communications, a new media company that operates intergrated media businesses such as Muniwireless and TechIQ. Al has been in the tech publishing business for many years. He conceived and launched
Related posts:
Loading ...
I applaud Al for this essay and want to say that he speaks the truth. We need to give these municipal wireless projects more time and expand our concept of what we’re doing in this new industry. The stakes are higher than we imagine and the possibilities more far-ranging. And we can learn from history, more specifically, from the high-tech boom of 100 years ago.
Arguably, broadband Internet connectivity today plays a similar role that electrification played 100 years ago. When electric networks represented the future, in the first 25-50 years of the 20th century, there was a long-running battle between the private sector and the public sector over who should be in charge of developing the network: the public or the private sector. We forget history when we assume that the public sector has no role in this new iteration of telecommunications – creating the new digital broadband network of the 21st century.
The stakes were high back then, as electricity networks rolled out and presidential candidates were backed by electric utilities to buy influence. Kicking off the trust-busting campaigns of the New Deal, FDR’s Attorney General prosecuted Samuel Insull, Edison’s assistant and one of the founders of GE, as well as the founder of various electric utility holding companies – really, one could say he was one of the fathers of the modern electric industry. But back then, he was painted as Public Enemy Number One, because he was one big target and the times demanded somebody to pay for the economic headaches of the Depression.
Things were not resolved quickly, but they did reach some harmonic balance over the years, and one could say the disputes ended in a stalemate, as we now have a stable electric industry made up of Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs), Municipally Owned Utilities (MOUs), and Electric Cooperatives.
With the advent of new wireless broadband technologies like Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX, new broadband network business models and paradigms have become possible and cities are well positioned to be catalysts and help make them happen. There is no reason other than inertia and recent tradition that demands that telecommunciations remain the purview of the private sector. As a society, we’re currently suffering from a limited set of paradigms and a collective lack of imagination, not to mention a lack of understanding history and the dramatic change we find ourselves in the middle of.
In my opinion, articles like the recent AP article that challenged municipal Wi Fi and highlighted the struggles of Lompoc, CA, suffer from a misplaced sense of impatience. They challenge this new technology and industry with a limited view of their potential, even as they compare them with mature technologies, such as cable or DSL broadband, or cellular telephony.
We should be having a public conversation on what new business models become possible with these new technologies. We should be exploring how municpal governments can be transformed and better fulfill their roles, and take on new roles to better serve their citizens. We should be more patient and more imaginative. We should be more excited and less scared, and less skeptical. We should be dreaming more and expanding our visions of our collective future.
You are missing two key facts. They are the simple physics of 2.4 Ghz RF under the FCC guidelines and the use of unlicensed spectrum. Everyone who knows anything about these issues should have a healty dose of skepticism concerning mesh wi-fi. These two factors determine the fate of these projects, not work, energy, effort, or money as you may think. All other cited examples(power, dsl, cable, cellular) were over controllable mediums (ie wires or licensed RF). Wi-fi has significant constraints compared to these examples because its is wireless and unlicensed.
If the municipality really wants to excel then they should be looking at bring fiber optic cables to every home or waiting until a viable wireless technology/spectrum comes along (new 700mhz spectrum anyone??) so they can provide a reliable opportunity to ALL citizens, not just those lucky enough to be near a wi-fi node.
You are all putting the “concept” ahead of the technology. The concept is a fantastic utopia. The reality is that you cannot polish a sneaker and wear it with a tuxedo. And muni wi-fi, for all it great potential benefits, is nothing more than that. Don’t waste any more of the taxpayer money dressing up the benefits of ubiquitous connectivity until you find yourself a decent dress shoe.
I appreciate your comments, RickT, and I would be at the front of the line of those decrying the overselling of Wi Fi Mesh. I certainly don’t think Wi Fi is all that and a bag of chips. But it is good and cheap and in many markets, it will end up introducing many more people to broadband than will waiting patiently by for the private sector to bring affordable broadband in, when the particular area happens to be at the back of the line for development.
As others have noted, when it comes to municipal applications and benefits, cities are attracted to MOBILE wireless applications like data access in squad cars and video surveillance – no amount of fiber will address those particular mobile needs, and air cards from cellular providers have proven inadequate so far. Or it may be that a wireless project gets the attention of an incumbent and leads them to make service improvements…who loses in that scenario, where Wi Fi is but a catalyst and stimulant?
Much of the criticism leveled against Wi Fi Mesh recently, and I think you echo that, concerns its inadequacies as a replacement for broadband access technoologies like cable and DSL. I don’t think that’s where Wi Fi mesh shines, that part has been oversold, and I suspect that will be proven in many cases in the next year. So, I agree with you, to a point. And certainly, fiber is the cat’s meow when it comes to wired access, but it’s terribly expensive to trench and bury or hang that fiber – it would take some business case to make fiber work out economically for many cities – it’s a very expensive technology relative to Wi Fi Mesh…should all those cities do without any communication alternatives if fiber proves too expensive? Let them wait, you seem to say.
To borrow your phrase, when you have no shoes, sneakers may be a bad match for the tuxedo, and no amount of shoe polish will make them into dress shoes, but they’re certainly better than going barefoot! While some cities will no doubt “waste” the taxpayers money (and those rapscallions should be voted out, they do us no favors), not all will. Others will be very prudent, even as they push out the envelope – they will discover new ways of accomplishing their tasks through experimentation and innovation using new available technologies. Their work with Wi Fi mesh will lead them and others to adapt their business practice and become more efficient – I just don’t agree that that scenario describes a fantastic utopian concept. That’s called progress, it’s easily within reach, and cities are just as capable of exercising innovation in prudent business fashion as are their private sector counterparts, and we should demand it of them.
Sometimes a tuxedo is overkill when a basic wardrobe is what’s needed. Sometimes we need to be patient and let some mistakes be made, so that lessons can be learned by all. I think Wi Fi mesh will through trial and error find its place in the variety of technologies that can make up an integrated communication system for municipalities, together with cellular data, BPL, DSL, Cable, Fiber, WiMAX, and some day, some 700 MHz-based wireless technology. It’s not the be all and end all, but it’s not junk either. It deserves a seat at the table, if only because of the billions of Wi Fi chips that are being pumped out now. This race is too early to be called.
John,
I will go paragraph by paragraph to explain my position and experience, and they are not as you inferred from my statements.
P1 – Wi-fi usage will not necessary bring those without broadband to broadband. It is much more likely that those with the complementing technology (laptops) will already be using broadband and will be the users of this technology. Second, for those that think the internet is confusing try having them manage a wi-fi connection. I know I help people all day get connected.
Broadband IS affordable. DSL from ATT, QWEST and Verizon start at less than $19.95 or less in almost every area of the country.
P2 – Why has cellular been inadequate? Wi-fi mesh offers 1mbps symmetrical, best effort. EVDO rev1 and HSDPA are pushing close to those speeds (much higher in the next revision) and constantly improving. Not to mention they offer a much better coverage area, work outside of the locality, cost significantly less than building your own network even on a 5 year recurring model (I can run those numbers for you any time you are interested) and the municipality doesn’t have to own, maintain, manage or upgrade the infrastructure. The companies do it often as is possible. Then add that their are three or more choices in most every municipality so if the current provider doesn’t invest in their network than you can just move to another at a low cost.
Wi-fi as a catalyst is a not a good idea, how about tax incentives and other government proven catalysts to get the private sector interested.
P3 – No the cities should not do without, that is a strawman argument. I do not think you can cite a single example where a the choice is either no solution or wi-fi mesh. Their is cellular, fixed wireless, cable, dsl, CLECS, and all of the other choices currently being utilized by the cities today. Their belief (or what is being sold to them)is that wi-fi mesh will be cheaper than using a private source for their needs. This is where I say NO, wi-fi mesh is not cheaper, because their are innumerable hidden costs and inadequacies that wi-fi mesh (which is UNLICENSED) has when using the technology for public safety. And once these all get ironed out (I believe never but lets say from your perspective 3-5 years) the system will be outdated and need to be completely upgraded and replaced.
Fiber is expensive, but so was trenching every power and cable line or string these to every home. If broadband is the next utility we should be able to bring it the people, all the people, in an easy to use and reliable delivery method. Wi-fi is not either. If it isnt as important as power, sewage, etc yet than we will have to wait until it makes economic sense (pricing falls, demand increases). Wi-fi is just an inadequate and outdated stop gap measure, that is not even as reliable and inexpensive as cable or DSL.
P4 – Strawman again. The city already has shoes and can chose from a number of different options as stated above. They just think they are getting dress shoes with wi-fi because thats what they are being sold. My argument is that no amount of progress and work will make wi-fi change its physics and unlicensed status. These two things are why it will never achieve its purported benefits.
And to think a municipality can be CONSISTENTLY more innovative and cutting edge than the private sector is simply false and wishful thinking. I have decades of American history and our successful current economic model to prove this.
P5 – Time will tell. I just hate to see all of this money wasted on a loser when the money could be better spent on working, existing technology that is already in place (cellular) for the short run while a proper spectrum and technology for municipalities is developed and allocated.
I guess we will agree to disagree and one of us will be validated in the coming year or two. The funny thing is that I had this same argument two years ago and was told wait two years….guess what I am still waiting.
I think you’re right, Rick, we’ll have to agree to disagree, although it’s been a fun debate. We’re fairly far apart on any number of points and we’re risk talking at cross purposes. I’ll leave with two simple points.
First, numerous areas of the country don’t have access to the technologies you propose they turn to, neither choice in broadband or access to affordable cellular data – but they do have access to Wi Fi Mesh.
Second, check back again in two more years. We’ve been waiting a long time for ubiquitous broadband options and we’ll need to wait even more. It’s a big country and the pace of change is regrettably slow without more enthusiastic leadership. Thus, my arguments for innovation out on the edge, and patience as change slowly occurs.