Less is more

Making wireless networks cost-efficient above all else is a concept that many early municipal Wi-Fi advocates failed to grasp. “Developing a municipal wireless network as a public offering intended to make some money is where there have been failures,” says Alan Shark, executive director of the Washington-based Public Technology Institute (PTI). “Look at what people are spending on technology. At home, they have cable TV — that's a median of $80 a month. If you have HD, that bumps you up. Internet access is maybe $35 to $40, cell phone, $30 to $50. If you add that all up, why would people be willing to spend another $20 per month for public Wi-Fi access?”

So, cities and counties may need to settle for islands of publicly available coverage in which network operators can sell access for a modest fee or offer it free with advertising support. “Cities will still have hot zones,” Settles says. “But isolated hot zones won't have the hoopla that the idea of cities blanketed with Wi-Fi had.”

While public fee-based Wi-Fi blankets are giving way to new models based on hot zones and governments as anchor network tenants, the notion that municipal networks can help erase the digital divide remains alive and well, if somewhat battered. Settles says that while government use is now the strongest driving force in the construction of municipal networks, broadband inclusion remains the next most significant driver. “The only place they are talking about public access is in rural areas where a public wireless network is the only way to get broadband,” he says. “They represent the other side of the digital inclusion question, the side challenged by geography instead of low income.”

Broadband inclusion for urban low-income areas might be a more difficult challenge because it would require the more risky and expensive wireless blanket approach from which municipalities have started to move away. However, Settles says some larger cities like Minneapolis and, most notably, Philadelphia, are still trying to build networks that include both the municipal government as an anchor tenant and a digital inclusion fund to bring access to the under-privileged. Minneapolis' network, which received positive reviews for its role in keeping emergency responders connected during last year's I-35 bridge collapse, is now about 80 percent finished, and Philadelphia's is about 70 percent completed, Settles says.

Shark, however, is not certain urban networks with broadband inclusion as their primary mission can work. “Giving some people on the other side of the digital divide a computer is like giving them a car without the license to drive it,” Shark says. “Rural cities and counties are different. There, the city might be the provider of last resort.”

That's exactly the case in Washtenaw County, Mich., home to about 340,000 people. It sits in a six-county area of Michigan where a 2004 survey found that nearly 25 percent of residents did not own a computer. The county began building a network in 2006 and currently has about 30 square miles out of a total county coverage area of 720 square miles, says David Behen, Washtenaw County administrator. “The main goal was to provide a broadband option to the folks in the western half of Washtenaw County. They currently have no options. A secondary goal was for [the] government to use the network for the continually growing mobile workforce,” Behen says.

However, like others, Washtenaw County has seen public support weaken and potential funding and partners wobble since the broader muni-Wi-Fi bubble popped. The project was due to be completed last year, but some funding and interest evaporated. “Funders seemed to have dried up after Philly, Chicago, San Francisco, San Antonio, [and] others pulled out of the industry,” Behen says. “Although the funding dried up nationally, we are hopeful that local funders will step up to the plate and fund our private sector partner, who is also local. Some have questioned the project and whether or not we can be successful. We still are absolutely committed to this [but] need to complete this project in the next 12 to 18 months to consider this a success.”

Municipal Wi-Fi networks have indeed taken a hit from the deflation of the hype that started the trend earlier in the decade. Corpus Christi, which had built its own network and then sold it to EarthLink, will have to find a new provider, as will Philadelphia, which also worked with EarthLink. But, cities that took their lumps now can rebound with better plans. “Philadelphia will have a decision to make about what it is going to do,” Settles says. “But, if they continue, they will be the largest city doing this kind of network for public and government use. They have a chance to be an inspiration and to be the city that other cities look at for guidance.”

EarthLink's exit created a void because it has been the lead contractor on several projects. Now, it may appear that there are a lack of potential partners that have the wherewithal and experience to build the networks. Shark does not believe that to be the case. “EarthLink poisoned the whole market,” he says. “The real issue for cities looking for partners is that if you have a business model, you will attract companies. There's not a lack of companies ready to build these networks. There is just a lack of economic sense making it possible.”

Dan O'Shea is a Chicago-based freelance writer.