Orlando Cancels Free WiFi Project

EvilStein writes "According to local news, the City of Orlando has cancelled the city WiFi project. The 6 month pilot program ran for 17 months instead of the planned 6, but in the end, it was costing the city too much money and very few people were using the service. Might other municipal WiFi projects go the same way?"

Comments

not economically feasible not a surprise

[yagu]

From the article: But city officials said that only about 27 people a day took advantage of the program -- not enough to justify the $1,800 the city paid every month for the service.

Maybe naively I've been waiting for the propogation of wireless to be everywhere and always available and if not free, at least very inexpensive, and ubiquitous. The quote above snapped me back to reality. Sure wireless everywhere is the buzz these days, but how many people really need, or want it? I would venture even in the techno-elite slashdot crowd many wait for wireless everywhere but only a relatively modest subset of those would actually use it, and of all who use it, it would not likely be at great volumes everywhere (as in, that's kind of what it needs to be to sustain and maintain the infrastructure).

Wireless internet isn't the same as cell phones in the sense that wireless access to the internet is nice, but doesn't drive communications as does telephony. Wireless internet access is a nicety but until wireless folds neatly into existing or expanding other necessary infrastructure (e.g., cell phone) I wouldn't be surprised to see other experimental free wireless internet sites suffer the same fate (really the question asked by the article).

If a city as large as Orlando didn't sustain the experiment there are many other cities that would point to that as justification for not even bothering trying, at least not in the near future.

(Doesn't mean I don't want it, just means it's too niche-y a market right now.)

Re:not economically feasible not a surprise

[samtihen]

Personally, I think the real problem is the availability of service in conjunction with the cost, rather than people's desire for it.

At this point in time, small wireless network hotspots are not all that useful except in certain situations, such as your home, your office, or a type of business such as a fast food joint.

WiMax (or an equivalent solution) is, of course, the only way that something like this will become effective. If user realizes that wireless access will be available ANYWHERE, not just some half block area, then more than 27 users will take advantage. Plus, when this happens, it will pave the way for VOIP services for mobile phones.

I have yet to make up my mind if this is a service that should even be provided by the government. It may be better left to private organizations to ensure that the government does not restrict or monitor information across the network.

Re:not economically feasible not a surprise

[deep44]

When I go to lunch I go to eat, talk with my wife, and just mellow out. Why would I want to surf the net at lunch? Why would I want to surf the net at a park?

Most people wouldn't. The point is, why work from the office when you can work from the park? ..or a coffee shop? ..or _anywhere_ in the city of Orlando?

When I was a kid, my parents bought their first cordless phone, replacing an old rotary phone in our living room. My Mom would always sit right next to the cordless basestation when she used it- not because she doubted the technology; it was just what she was accustomed to doing.

I think you see my point. Orlando was just a little ahead of the curve on this one..

Re:not economically feasible not a surprise

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Bingo -- it's a matter of network effects. Hotspots are useful only for a small number of people who are willing and able to go to those hotspots to get their work done. Always-on, available-everywhere wifi (used in the generic sense, not meaning any specific flavor of 802.11) is useful to ... well ... everybody, because it encourages the adoption of the technology that makes it useful.

Cell phones only became a universally accepted technology once coverage was good enough that you could be assured of getting a signal in just about any urban or suburban area, and most rural ones as well. Going a bit farther back, I believe the same is true of TV, and before that, radio. It would be absurd to look at a small-scale experiment like this and conclude "municipal wifi doesn't work."

Understand

[robpoe]

I live in Kansas City. If the city put in free wireless in our downtown - nobody would use it. There's nothing in our down town to do .. after 5:00PM (except buy drugs, hookers, or be on a cleaning crew).

A city running something like that would give me the willies anyway. Who's to say they wouldn't be monitoring every piece of information - and/or someone sitting there with AirSnort doing the same..