MuniWireless

Just over a year ago, municipal wireless could do no wrong. Today, according to some headlines, muni networks can do no right. It’s way past time to focus on the pragmatic middle ground.

These networks can change how the business of government gets done and significantly impact various constituencies. However, muni networks won’t cure all that’s wrong with the world, they’re unlikely to impact every city the same way and they definitely need greater creativity in the planning process to reach their promised value.

How accurately you define a problem or objective determines how effectively you solve said problem or reach the stated objective. What cities and a range of constituent groups (underserved communities, businesses, schools, hospitals, etc.) really need is immediate access to HUGE amounts of data, applications and other resources while indoors, outside or both.

Once you accept this premise, how you view available options for a network solution should change and expand. You begin evaluating not one but a range of wireless AND wired options. Equally as important, when you look at the range of entities that need high-speed access, this should change how you address the question of who pays and how.

Minneapolis committed $1.25 million a year for 10 years for services on that city’s network. With only 400,000 people, you don’t commit this much money without thoroughly analyzing the impact on all city departments and all assets, fixed and mobile. Don’t analyze just the usual suspects – public safety and utility meters. Each department in the mix not only adds another return on the network investment, but also opens new potential funding options. Department of Transportation grants for transit management applications, philanthropic grants for health and social services, to name two.

The Santa Monica, CA experience

Similarly, a broader analysis of constituents’ needs opens the door to new relationships and partnerships for a city that increases its muni networks’ financial viability. The CIO of Santa Monica, California was told there was no money in the city budget for new network technology. So, after generating seed capital from money saved by replacing city-owned communication with new technology (including wireless), he proceeded to identify needs for fiber among businesses that incumbents were unwilling or unable to offer.

He provided access to city fiber and developed fiber extensions to businesses, all for fees that were reinvested into the city’s network infrastructure and more services for constituents such as free hot spots. The IT department now has a self-sustaining operating budget, $2.5 million in available capital for new purchases and an infrastructure foundation in place for the citywide wireless network that Santa Monica plans to deploy.

More partnerships, please

Other cities are forming partnerships with their public school system, local colleges, hospitals and even prisons to present a ready-made customer base for potential service providers. Home Depot or Macy’s isn’t the sole anchor tenant if you want a successful mall. Cities should not be the sole anchor tenant on a muni network. But again, without broadening your view of constituent needs, how can you see the full array of partnership opportunities that may exist in your municipality?

I pointedly disagree with the notion going around that municipal ownership is the only “one true” option, particularly in the criticism of Philadelphia by people who were not involved in that city’s needs analysis, business planning or contract negotiations. This falls into the same sandpit that caused many muni wireless disasters, which is expecting (demanding) that one business model or financing option be used by all cities.

Municipal ownership has much to recommend it, but there are places where this isn’t politically possible or financially practical. The constant drumbeat for ownership should adjust to the fact that the public good, including digital inclusion, can be attained by comprehensive contracts with teeth to ensure compliance plus a well-developed network business plan. And the idea that the need for vendors and service providers to make a profit is the source of muni broadband’s ills is rather silly.

Whether a city or the community buys or leases it, agencies and philanthropic groups fund it, or Santa Claus brings it, someone somewhere has to pay vendors for their wares and services or you don’t get a high quality, sustainable network. The key is using the full range of options available to find the most practical ways to fund the best network that meets government and constituents’ needs, while putting relationships and contracts in place to ensure the public good.

Coming full circle, how accurately you define an objective determines how effectively you solve reach stated objective. Success stories are out there for a variety of constituent needs for high-speed access, and more are on the way. Reach out to these winners, analyze those less successful their first time out and don’t let critics or doom merchants put blinders on you as you establish objectives and the plans to reach them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

About the author

Craig Settles is an Oakland, CA-based business strategy consultant and author of After Muni Wireless Comes to Town, a recently released guide to effectively deploying government mobile workforce applications.