My post on Wireless Philadelphia generated a lot of comments from readers. People seem to have two mindsets about the idea of municipal wireless. Some folks believe that providing high-speed internet to every city resident is a worthwhile investment in public infrastructure. Others say that this type of service should be handled by the private sector and point to numerous companies that already offer internet access at an affordable rate. EarthLink's decision to abandon Philadelphia has raised questions about how the city should move forward with this effort.
I have my own opinions about the subject, but I thought it might be worthwhile to highlight a couple of the comments that take the argument in different directions. Here’s one perspective:
I have to agree with Rizzo that Wireless Philly (at least as proposed) is a silly idea. It isn't providing anything that wasn't there before the city stepped in... except for providing internet access in poor neighborhoods, which the market apparently doesn't do -- or doesn't do well? Not sure -- because it's unprofitable.The basic objection to Wireless Philadelphia is that government should not do something the private sector already does. One commenter on my original post even used the world “socialist” to describe municipal wireless. I think that’s a little bit extreme, but it is impossible to deny that Earthlink’s network, built on infrastructure leased from the city, competes with other internet service providers that do not use publicly owned assets such as telephone poles or lamp posts. Should government be involved with providing wireless internet? If so, where should we draw the line at the public sector getting involved in areas dominated by private companies? Should we use EarthLink’s decision to sell the network as a way to end the project all together?The logical conclusion of all this is that taxpayer dollars would have to be used to provide the desired services to the poor neighborhoods. I.e. something unprofitable, or that would be prohibitively expensive, getting subsidized with public funds -- happens with things like highways and other infrastructure, the question is whether internet access is something that should be subsidized.
Another commenter points out that the goals of Wireless Philadelphia have changed over time and believes that is why the project has stumbled:
Wireless Phila was originally promoted as free, universal wifi service. Then after some time it morph'd to low-fee, then to low-fee based on some form of means-testing. The original concept was excellent but it threatened the price-gouging of the major ISP's. And now we have this--a failure that will be attributed to the dumb-luck of Philadelphia never being able to achieve its goals…RadioTimes had a very interesting broadcast about this not long ago. I recall the main message to be that municipal-owned wireless is actually a wise investment for cities because it facilitates efficient and inexpensive communication for the improved performance of city services, including police, fire, and emergency. By owning the network, the city itself is not vulnerable to the whims of for-profit ownership (like EarthLink abandoning the project halfway).This commenter questions the entire notion of forming a public-private partnership to build the wireless network. There is clearly some merit to the argument that the current structure of the initiative puts Philadelphia in risk of being held hostage by decisions made by private companies like EarthLink. If the wireless network was completely owned and operated by the city, it would not be subject to the whims of the free market. However, this would clearly put city government in the business of providing internet access and a lot of people don’t think that’s such a good idea.
Personally, I think investing in a wireless network is very worthwhile for Philadelphia. Making Philadelphia look cool and tech-savvy to outsiders is not the only benefit. The internet has become a vital communication tool in modern society. It’s necessary for everything from students doing academic research to job seekers looking to connect with potential employers. A citywide wireless network is a tremendously valuable piece of infrastructure, particularly for a city that so often seems to be trapped in the 19th century.
The main question in my mind is how to actually make it happen. It seems very unlikely that City Council, already skeptical of Wireless Philadelphia, would approve having the city purchase the network from EarthLink and operate the system. The more likely outcome is that another internet service provider will purchase the network and complete the project. That seems to be the best option for moving forward—but how long will it take for EarthLink to find another buyer?
So, what say you? Would buying the wireless network from EarthLink be a good use of our money or should be wait for another company to save the system?
Comments (4)
Providing a free city-wide wireless network most definitely has a socialist bent to it. However, I think it's a good form of socialism, since it would actually provide certain opportunities to people who might not have it otherwise. It would allow people who are willing to put out the effort to better themselves in the long run.
One problem I have with doing so in Philadelphia is the city's fiscal situation. We're already having trouble funding necessary government functions, despite arguably having the highest tax burden of any major city. Furthermore, the "bad socialist" element that exists in city government through labor union rules governing hires and promotions, among other things, almost guarantees that a municipal wireless network would be poorly and inefficiently run. City Council's current resistance to reforms like the civil service-exempt deputy and residency requirement bills tells me that won't be changing any time soon.
Other extremely important issues that we haven't been discussing also have to do wit the technical feasibility of the city, or anyone, providing city-wide wireless access. I haven't been following developments in wireless technology very closely myself, but I would highly recommend reading the phillyblog.com thread I'm linking to below. I don't necessarily agree with everything said, but some extremely good points were made (yes, even by the original poster).
www . phillyblog . com/philly/general-discussion/52924-why-wireless-philadelphia-failed.html
Posted by Goofy | March 11, 2008 9:37 PM
If there were support for it, I suppose Philly could afford to buy the network, perhaps by forcing down Earthlink's price and bonding it out. Then there would be the cost of maintenance, upgrades, etc.
One fundamental problem is that Wifi is an inherently limited technology, and it's already gradually being surpassed by 3G networks, which just need to come down in price a bit. (Wimax is also coming.) Wifi is basically the dialup of the next few years, doomed to creeping obsolescence. So the city would be buying a dinosaur, borrowing money to buy a technology that would lose value from day one. Upgrading from wireless-G to faster wireless-N might extend its life, but I assume that would be expensive, and wireless-N hasn't yet been officially released or proved its merits on a wide scale.
On the other hand, where Wifi signals do reliably reach, they do provide convenient Internet access - again, it's like dialup, which many people continue to use because it's cheap and simple. And Wifi is faster than dialup.
I'm not sure I buy the argument that Wifi empowers people - having easier access to job listings, for example, doesn't make you more qualified for a job - but if the city thinks getting poor residents Internet access is an important goal, it should buy the network at a fire-sale price and keep it going for their sakes. It's a public service, a utility, like water and electricity, or perhaps a better analogy would be to say it's like a youth rec center or a health care center, something that tends to be most used by lower-income residents.
P.S. While the city is spending millions to buy out Earthlink, it should spend a few bucks improving its own website, which is lacking in many areas.
Posted by Myron | March 12, 2008 12:21 AM
The concept of a city wide network is relevant and necessary. Philadelphia has finally started to take a step onto the world stage but incompetence has once again foiled its plans. WiFi and WiMax are not easy standards to roll out in an urban environment. Fiber Optic cable is still necessary in these systems. At least from my readings it is needed to overcome some of the line of sight issues.
In this economic environment it would be a good public relations effort to take responsibility of laying fiber optic cables where it is necessary. The city would relieve any potential buyer of substantial upfront infrastructure costs. In return the city will gain an excellent tool to relay information and hopefully cut some costs in city expenses.
Also wifi and wimax are public goods. I see no reason why the government should not be actively engaged in either regulating or operating a wireless network. De-regulation does not necessarily help anyone other than those who own the company or own stock in that company. The city could build a wireless network and create a public utility that has a civil service exam. I know this would never happen but I think cheap wireless access is an excellent idea.
There is a WiMax network in Bangladesh. I like to believe that Philadelphia is capable of equally a city in one of the poorest countries in the world.
Posted by Michael | April 21, 2008 1:11 PM
Wireless Philly would have worked if they would have chosen a the right equipment(s). Its now proven that Tropos is not suited to handle a this large of a design. From what I remember Tropos only uses one technology for each of its routers its either 802.11 a or 802.11 b/g for user connectivity and hopping.
Like Micheal stated fiber is needed in this kind of urban enviroment. To often people think that having this kind of network completely wireless will work but it won't. They don't seem to realize that it is only wireless to the user everything else must be wired. Using fiber to backhaul is the only solution. Forget about those wireless backhauls like motorola's little AP that connects to the tropos unit for point to point backhauls. Using high band radios for backhauls could be a solution but is also very expensive for the amount of bandwidth that is needed and all the other cost of keeping the equipment on non city owned building not to mention their sensativity to weather conditions etc...
The routers they are using can only handle so many users I don't think they did there bandwidth calculations correctly so at 1Mb or so per user down, each unit can only handle comfortable probably 15 user. Like I stated earlier because these radios only use one spectrum to connect users and to connect to eachother for meshing you loose alot of through-put with each hop. I'll just put it this way, if there is 15 users at 1 Mb on 1 node that needs to hop 6 times to the gateway before its backhauled plus all the other traffic from the other users on each one of those hopping nodes at the normal 54Mb which is really probable only about 35 with all the overhead well its just not possible for each user to have 1Mb. They should have chosen equipment that supports mutiple technologies within one unit. For instance a product like Strix Systems would have been a little better with this because its outdoor enclosures house multiple radios. You can use 2.4Ghz for the users and then use the 5Ghz for the meshing. This eliminates the use of the user's spectrum for hoping thus allowing more throught-put, not much but better than what tropos can do.
Just like any network it takes the right Engineers and the right equipment to make it work properly. Wireless is a fairly new technology and it takes time and planing. I think they rushed this project and had the wrong people to design it. For 20 some million dollars they could have brought in the right people and not monkeys to make wireless philly a sucess. Hopfully WP takes the right path in getting the right people to finish the job and make it work. Still don't know why they used Earthlink they are a crappy ISP to begin with.
Posted by Jay | April 22, 2008 2:04 PM