A few years ago, when the words "hip"and "Philadelphia" began appearing in the same sentence, the phrase "Wireless Philadelphia" was usually lurking nearby. This brainchild of Mayor John "Waiting-in-line-for-an-I-Phone" Street was one of the few items that people agreed was part of his positive legacy. Wireless Philadelphia is/was a great idea. The plan was to make the entire city a wireless hotspot and give residents access to a reliable internet connection anywhere in the city for just $21.95 per month. The project was also supposed to help bridge the digital divide by offering low income individuals a special subsidized rate. All of this was going to be done by a private company and cost the city absolutely nothing.
So, what's the problem? Earthlink, the company responsible for building the network is getting out of the municipal wireless business and wants to sell the Philadelphia network. No one is surprised that Earthlink is jumping ship, but a new proposal to spend tax dollars on implementing the project has raised some eyebrows on city council.
Originally, the plan was for Earthlink to build a citywide wireless network, sign up customers, and fund a non-profit called Wireless Philadelphia to provide internet access to low-income individuals. The problem is that Earthlink couldn't figure out a way to build the network profitably. The company has stopped expanding the network (about 70% of which is complete) and is no longer looking to sign up new customers. The entire project is basically at a standstill and will remain that way until sold to another operator.
Still, the plan to build a citywide wireless network still won't cost taxpayers anything, right? Well, not exactly. The Nutter Administration requested $200,000 for the Mayor's Office of Information Services to hire a project manager to work on implementing the wi-fi proposal. The money was in an appropriations bill that was considered by City Council on Monday and is expected to be voted on March 27. Councilman Frank Rizzo, a early critic of the wi-fi plan, believes that this violates the original spirit of the proposal sold to City Council.
"We had all been led to believe that there would be no taxpayer dollars to support Wireless Philadelphia. This is the beginning of this project costing the taxpayers money," said Rizzo. "I'm not suggesting it's millions and millions of dollars, but we don't really know how many hours members of the administration have spent on Wireless Philadelphia."
Still, the only way to save the project may be to spend more tax dollars. Michael Calabrese, Vice President of the New America Foundation and an expert on municipal wireless, believes the best option for Philadelphia may be to buy the network from Earthlink and complete the project with public funds.
"Like most public services, there is no free lunch. Still, other cities have shown that are benefits to be gained with a very moderate investment," said Calabrese. "In some ways, Philadelphia is at an advantage now. It can buy the network at a low cost and the funds needed to complete it would be fairly modest."
A second option would be for another company to buy the network and complete construction. Earthlink already sunk $20 million into the system, so it could be a good investment. Philadelphia is home to one of the largest internet providers in the nation-- Comcast. Why won't this hometown company invest in our high-tech infrastructure? Seems like a no-brainier.
Philadelphia is not the only big town struggling with municipal wireless. Citywide networks have struggled to get off the ground in cities such as Chicago, Houston, and St. Louis. Even tech-friendly San Francisco shelved it's wireless project last year due. Philadelphia still has a chance to say ahead of the technological curve. We just have to figure out how to do this before anyone else can.
Comments (12)
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 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 (there are good arguments on both sides).
Anyway, internet access in poor neighborhoods is generally provided through internet cafes. Cities in most third world countries have a ton of them, as do certain American cities, notably in California, I think. Heck, Philly even has a couple internet cafes -- I can think of one Girard Ave in Fishtown and on the 4000 block of Market St, right off the top of my head. There's also the ING Direct cafe on Walnut. Once again, though, these are market driven, at least to a certain extent.
As far as Comcast footing the bill, maybe that $200k the Nutter administration is trying to allocate came out of Comcast's BPT payment?
Comcast's broadband service is a bit expensive, but I believe you can get service from Verizon that's at least as cheap as Wireless Philly.
Posted by Goofy | March 7, 2008 12:43 AM
The customer service from day one was bad, just bad.
Another poorly managed project. Just go to The Feather website. 3rd World.
Posted by Corb | March 7, 2008 1:15 PM
The key question isn't the financial model--there are a variety of organizational and payment structures that would make wifi financially feasible.
The key question is: what is the technological capabilities of the current system? If the signal is strong, reliable and secure enough, people will use the system. If upgrading means completely replacing what Earthlink has installed, however, then the project may have sunk costs and it would be foolish to try and recoup them or invest more money.
I think the city has to reverse the process. It needs to figure our what technology will work for a big city first and then it needs to have people commit to joining the system by getting on a willing paying customer list. This way, if the city or a new company is going to get the project off the ground there isn't as much risk involved. ~10,000 folks using the system would ensure the system could pay for itself and for low income folks too.
Lastly, I have seen some improvement in the wifi signal over the past month or so.
Posted by Anonymous | March 7, 2008 1:21 PM
"Philadelphia is home to one of the largest internet providers in the nation-- Comcast. Why won't this hometown company invest in our high-tech infrastructure?"
That's why. Comcast, Verizon, and the rest of them.
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. I think there are scandals here and I feel certain that they will fall into the usual categories of corruption and govt's dysfunctional relationships with its corporate patrons.
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). The interview is worth the listen.
Bill Moyers did an interesting piece about it 3(?) years ago. I hope they're working on a follow-up because they first covered the story as an example of fantastic progressiveness on the part of Philadelphia when it looked like it was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. They need to do an update about its demise.
Posted by MB | March 7, 2008 1:24 PM
For anyone interested in a follow-up to this blog, Marty Moss-Coane had an excellent Radio Times show about the topic on 12/13/2007. She had two guests debating the issue of Philly WiFi. Listen to it here, http://www.whyy.org/cgi-bin/newwebRTsearcher.cgi.
I forget which guest made the argument, but one suggested a benefit from free WiFi for Philly could be improved municipal services. Getting more handheld technological devices into city street workers could increase efficiency. It's just another argument for why Philadelphia might want to put money towards ensuring the systems survives, and not just to benefit poorer neighborhoods, but to benefit all taxpayers.
Posted by Anymous | March 7, 2008 1:30 PM
I predicted failure with this from day one. When has Philly (or just about any other local government, and especially a single-party-rule government) been able to efficiently run any high tech utility?
I don't doubt that a city-wide wireless network is an asset. But I don't understand the opposition to a "for profit" ownership, other than the fact that the city is run by socialists of course, who think private enterprise is generally evil.
It wasn't a "whim" that Earthlink abandoned the project. The profit motive is what drives excellence. If the city wants to provide excellent city wide wireless service, it's going to cost money.
Comcast and Verizon are expensive. But they work.
Posted by Joe | March 7, 2008 4:00 PM
Of course we shouldn't bother comcast to provide the city with WIFI service after giving them a huge enterprise zone tax break.
Posted by fishlips | March 7, 2008 6:14 PM
If you're talking about the Comcast Center, it isn't an enterprise zone. It got a one time state grant that I heard roughly covers what they're spending on renovations to Suburban Station.
Besides, why would we give them a tax break because we're desperate for more jobs in this town, then try to shake them down and get it back?
Posted by Goofy | March 8, 2008 4:58 PM
Oh yeah, any new jobs Comcast brings to the Comcast Center that weren't already in the city will also generate new wage tax income.
Posted by Goofy | March 8, 2008 5:54 PM
city wifi is shooting at the wrong target. Verizon is at least as cheap, if not cheaper than what earthlink planned (and a heck of a lot better quality), yet a significant amount of the city population don't CHOOSE to purchase it. City tax dollars would be better spent improving the demand side of the equation. If earthlink is not cheaper than Verizon and its service is much worse than verizon and Comcast, where is the benefit?
A simple review of the advances in broadband in the two years since Philly Wifi was announced will show the folly of the experiment. Unless we're ready to pony up significant dollars to keep upgrading the network like Verizon and Comcast do, we should focus on addressing the pressing problem of demand.
Posted by Stu | March 10, 2008 8:02 PM
earthlink wifi is cheaper than verizon, especially if you don't use a landline. I don't know anyone under 35 that intentionally pays for a landline.
earthlink wifi is mobile - i can access porn on my laptop all over the city
Posted by Jerm | March 10, 2008 9:30 PM
Verizon has dry-loop DSL that doesn't require a land-line, even though it can be hard to get with Verizon's terrible customer service (or at least it used to be).
Posted by Goofy | March 10, 2008 9:54 PM