Slashdot Mirror
EarthLink Says No Future for Municipal Wi-Fi
Glenn Fleishman writes "EarthLink dropped its final bombshell on city-wide Wi-Fi, saying that it wouldn't put more money in and was talking to their current deployed cities about the future. The company had won bids in dozens of cities, and then backed out of the majority of them before building or finalizing contracts a few months ago. The remaining towns they were building out, like New Orleans, Anaheim, and Philadelphia, will ostensibly be turned off unless local officials come up with scratch or a plan of their own. EarthLink pioneered the model of free-for-fee networks, where there would be no cost or upfront commitment from cities, and EarthLink would charge for network access. Apparently, you can't make money that way."
Wi-fi was not designed for this type of situation. It's great for small places, but not city wide. Does it even matter anyway when most places offer free wi-fi?
Wait for wi-max or something similar.
City-wide wifi might be a benefit to smaller towns, but in the world's larger municipal areas, there are no so many home networks left open that one can just use whatever is nearby.
Check that out. a company goes into many wifi bids, wins most of them, and then suddenly decides 'city wide is not worth it'.
thats foul play at its best. proxies, they are.
Read radical news here
Since WHEN does Earthlink know ANYTHING about providing good service for the public?
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
When they make and win the bid, why aren't they legally obligated to follow through with it?
for example in the eastern part of germany, after reunification, there were lines in cities that could not be used for DSL. the german "freifunk" (literally "free wireless", both as in beer and as in speech) project managed to build some sizeable city mesh nets using a routing protocol known as OLSR [1,2].
just look in awe at the leipzig cloud [3]. also, try to imagine wireless cell phone / pda mesh nets (probably doable right now with openmoko).
[1] http://olsr.org/
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3626.txt
[3] http://db.leipzig.freifunk.net/uptime/png/ -- careful, images is 3165x4206
but i live in germany and most private networks i encounter in berlin or munich and also smaller towns are encrypted. yeah, WEP is easily crackable, but you do not want to face time in jail here for posessing aircrack-ng [1], do you ? [1] http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1629259
I've subscribed to OneZine city WiFi in Toronto, Canada and the signal degrades quickly as you move back from the street. The best signal is sitting on the sidewalk with your laptop ... with the homeless people. You also pick up a strong signal while driving of cycling on the street but ... not a lot of time to use it.
Suffice to say I dropped it in favour of Starbucks Wifi/Bell Hotspots which have a stronger signal indoors. There are enough Starbucks around that I'm never without a connection.
Tee hee, that's soooo cute... to quote the late Art Linkletter "Kids say the darndest things!
Three Squirrels
I wonder if the problem with Municipal Wi-Fi, or Wi-Fi in general, is that companies like EarthLink are trying to operate with their hands tied behind their back with restrictive power limitations and limited frequencies while the FCC gives away large chunks of the best part of the spectrum to cell phone providers for millions of dollars who then nickel and dime us for every trivial service they can think of.
Perhaps he reason we don't have a ubiquitous and cheap wireless Internet and why TCP/IP mesh networks are *not* on the horizon for the 700MHz part of the spectrum is because the government insists on auctioning off a zero cost medium for mega bucks to legal monopolies who have no choice but to turn around and stick it their customers.
Maybe we need to stop thinking in terms of phone systems when we think about the spectrum and start thinking more in terms of extending the Internet. Just a thought.
People shrug at these deals and delays and say they are "free" to the cities.
But there is a huge opportunity cost when these muni wifi projects stall out.
When cities cut deals that grant right of way and other concessions to a particular vendor, it tends to keep other players out of that space.
Ann Arbor is a perfect example. The vendor contracted to do the muni wifi (20/20 Communications) is struggling financially and has no idea where they will get the money to complete the project or when they will do it. And yet they keep signing up more cities. They look like a bunch of bozos who never had a real plan. They overcommitted themselves. They have FAILED. They should just give up and give other competitors a shot at delivering service.
Of course AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Comcast and Charter *love* this. They don't want you to have alternatives at the edge. For them, the longer companies like 20/20 stall and delay, the better. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there has been some backroom dealing between the companies.
Dang, the project is delayed again with no new completion date. But it is going to be free!
WiMax is what we deserve
This is yet another example of the general public being fucked over by a so-called P3: Public Private Partnership.
The idea is that instead of the municipal government setting up an organization to perform a specific project, they basically contract out the job to private firms. Supposedly this will lead to more economical and better quality service. Instead, what we've seen time and time and time again, is nothing but higher prices, and far shittier service.
Then we get cases like this, where the private interest just pulls out of the deal when it's no longer profitable for them. Of course, it doesn't matter that they've fucked over the community. A lot of the time these companies have little to no ties with the community they are servicing, so leaving the public there high and dry causes these private firms little grief.
Where is your volunteerism?? Why should you expect the government, a company, or anyone else to provide you with wifi service when you can roll out your own??
You are not consumers. You can be producers if you want. Just knock your neighbour's door and ask whether they would like to start a new wifi community network project with you. Connect your home wifis together, and if you find a lot of people to join in then you will have created your own network. Then buy a business plan fixed broadband service or a dedicated line (paid either by the community as a whole or by one richer member who can pay for it) and connect it to your wireless and your network will be connected to the Internet as well.
That simple. Yes, I know, the technology (WiFi) is not perfect and you can't transmit with too much power, but if everyone has a roof and the signal is sufficient from roof to roof, then you don't need anything else. The major difficulty is actually a social one (your neighbors may not understand what volunteerism is), but you should try to educate your neighbors and persuade them why they should join in.
Look what people from my city are doing: AWMN and also look at the photos and some other networks in existence worldwide.
The cage is open guys. You have unlicensed bands that you can use without a permit from FCC or other agency. You even can have RONJA if you like the optical way. You also have telephone lines, modems, and BBS software. Why you don't use all this technology to create free networks? Are you really trained to act only as consumers, expecting that for everything you need you should buy it from someone else? If you aren't happy with what is available, build your own!
Calling Earthlink provided Wifi a municipal service is the same as calling PG&E my municipal power provider.
Hint: They are both false statements.
Second hint: Therein lies the reason why Earthlink nor any other will succeed at providing a public service.
They can, and most certainly do, serve themselves in any way they can. Given the slightest smell of a government subsidized monopoly (i.e. "municipal" wifi), it's no wonder Earthlink jumped in full bore without putting any though into it. Didn't turn out to be the gravy train you hoped for, now did it.
Here in Finland, a company called Digita is rolling out something they call @450 broadband, basically they're using the old NMT frequencies to provide wide-coverage wireless internet access at a max speed of 1mbps. Apparently they've been open for business since april, 2007, and TeliaSonera is said to begin offering access to the network starting this December.
Some links, all in Finnish:
http://www.450laajakaista.fi/
FAQ:
http://www.450laajakaista.fi/9023/9022/9046
The main points in the FAQ seem to be: Suitable for wide-area networks, requires a separate modem, either an external box or a PCMCIA card. No pricing info released yet, my sources told me "a couple of ten euros per month". Useable on moving vehicles. Available speeds: 1024/512, 512/256.
Coverage:
http://www.450laajakaista.fi/Missatoimii/9092/9093 (map dated 15th october 2007, unfortunately PDF)
Colours mean:
blue: Useable indoors without external antenna. Also useable outdoors.
dark purple: Generally useable outdoors without external antenna in parks and such, indoors with antenna. Mobile use requires external antenna.
light purple: In order to get a connection, a directional antenna must be deployed outdoors, e.g. on the roof of your home.
The coverage is being extended continuously, per schedule it should cover all of Finland by the end of 2009. In principle it sounds quite good to me, the speed however means it won't be a replacement for regular wired broadband. For mobile use, though, if the price isn't too high, it might not be too bad a deal.
Of course you can't make money this way, that was clear to many people years ago. Earthlink just wasn't paying attention.
If you want to know why, just look at the work of groups like Personal Telco Projectin Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
It's a great point. In some cases, EarthLink had won a bid, but not started contract negotiations. In some cases, a contract was on the table, but not signed. In some cases, a contract was completed, but the city hadn't executed it (often, a mayor works out the details and a council approves it, and then a utility has to be involved to agree to pole uses).
Where a contract is in place, EarthLink will have to unwind its obligations. In Houston, it paid $5m for not starting the network. In Philadelphia, they will likely pay out millions to walk away.
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
I've said this a dozen times in related articles, but I'll say it again.
802.11 is the flat out, 100%, god awful, worst solution for last mile delivery. I work for a wisp that uses Canopy products, and we just laugh at the 802.11 competition. 802.11 performance degrades the more people you stuff on an access point. The limited channels, and the fact that they scream over each other forces competing networks to get into AMP powered frequency wars. The fact that only channels 1, 6 and 11 are clear from each other makes splitting an access tower to more than three 120 degree sectors pretty much impossible. And neighboring towers will interfere with each other. Oh, and because of how 802.11 does time sharing, essentially Ethernet collision detection with a few hacks on top, one nasty user can monopolize 95% of the available bandwidth for himself without much effort. And this is just my experience in the countryside, where we have few competitors to the last remnants of 802.11 we still have deployed. The reason no one can make money deploying 802.11 on a massive scale is because operationally speaking, it costs a bloody fortune to maintain.
Just because Moto's canopy is proprietary doesn't make it bad. They have been very good to us, old client radios work with newer access points, whenever a new generation of access points comes out, they have an awesome trade up deal that lasts for months, giving us plenty of time to give our customers the best speed available, without breaking the bank in one mass upgrade. There is an active 3rd party mailing list, that Moto monitors and responds to, an entire community of support from end ISPs, and mountains of documentation.
Do wireless right, make money, do it 802.11, and spend hours on the phone with irritated users who want to switch back to dialup.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
To be cost-effective, the people installing it need either a guaranteed income stream or a reasonable chance of attracting enough paying customers to make it worthwhile.
In cities where most home users who want Internet already have it, this is tough.
WiFi does work well in parks and other public facilities where the WiFi provider doesn't have to compete with cheaper services. It also works well in hotel lobbies and hotel rooms that that lack convenient wired connections.
Wifi simply does not have the economy of scale that WiMax or G3-phone-modems have.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It just yet.
Eventually i think it will become another utility like water or sewer or trash pickup, paid for by yet another line item on your local taxes.. That way the government can claim 'the basic human right of wifi to our constituents' and the ISP/Telcos can make guaranteed money. ( x$ per house in the area regardless of your intent to use, much like schools do now in many areas )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I run a wireless ISP in Texas. I still don't understand the logic. I thought most companies using the give it away logic died during the dot com bubble. We use a number of different technologies, non of them including 802.11x We provide a high quality of service, and charge our customers for service. Even with a good business model and paying customers, this is not a business for the light of heart or capital. If you give it away, they might come.... but you will go. Marco Coelho Argon Technologies Inc.
"No....well.. maybe?" said techno-dork #1.
/Sorry
techno-dork #2 responds, "I cant quite put my finger on it.."
Then t-d #2 adds "But it's a simple theory. Free wi-fi, happy users, equals profit!"
T-d #1(who is the smarter of the group) "I think I see the problem..
free wifi + happy users = profit?"
t-d #1 adds "the eqaution is missing a constant...
free wifi + happy users + money = profit"
DOH!
(ducks)
(ducks again)
In case anyone cares -- those payouts in the cities where the contracts have been partially fulfilled are the result of "liquidated damage" clauses in the contracts, if you care to learn more about it.
-Alex
The only payout I'm aware of is in Houston, and it wasn't for that reason. Where else?
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
We have a government that we pay taxes for. Make it a public infrastructure investment. It would be one of the better ones. This what we are supposed to use public services for. For when the private sector can't/won't do it. The choice is ours.
What?
Minneapolis is in the process of rolling out wi-fi. See here: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/wirelessminneapolis/
and here:
http://www.usiwireless.com/service/minneapolis/overview.htm
My friend is about to get connected to it. He said the modem was pricey, but he hates comcast so much that he doesn't care. I, otoh, game. Therefore I need the speed cable gives me so I'm kinda stuck with Comcast.
As far as profitability / viability goes, I have to assume USI Wireless is expecting to make money. Not sure that wireless WANs have surpassed current tech enough for them to back off their contract.
Duh, why weren't they using their heads from the beginning? They should have come up with a free-for-taxes solution. The system is installed all over a city, everyone in radio range uses the wifi for free, and the city immediately begins paying the company on a regular basis out of some new municipal tax that it would collect. (This could be an additional fee tacked on to the various municipal cell phone fees, or some other thing). Everyone would have to pay, even if they never use it, in the name of having free wifi all over the city. Earthlink would make zillions even if nobody ever used the darn thing. This might sound far-fetched, but remember that politicians don't give a hoot when it comes to your money, and also it's akin to the Walt Disney Company convincing the cable companies to increase everyone's monthly rates by $5 and start including the Disney Channel in the basic package. That way, everyone (even people who didn't order it) started receiving the Disney Channel "for free," and paying for it. It was sneaky, and if Earthlink had been wearing their thinking caps, they would have come up with a similar one for city-wide wifi.
Fuck you and the hoarse you rode in on. Lozzzzzzer
Whatever happened to that term, I don't see it used much anymore and it certainly isn't being prevented. OS vender sells anti-virus subscriptions... sounds good to me! Internet service providers being contracted to provide free Wifi and shrink their own customer base... sounds good to me! Huh... wonder why it didn't work out? I'm in Portland where MetroFi is spreading their add supported WiFi service, as soon as a hotspot opens that's accessible from my place I'm canceling my DSL. Clearly the ISPs notice a trend of canceling subscribers as free WiFis roll out. It's basically going to kill them. So how could anyone trust Earthlink to roll this out in the first place? I guess the idea is "trust them" even though logically they shouldn't be trusted for that project. Perhaps "conflict of interest" is just a rude phrase these days.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Fewer APs or more? If every user was also an AP and router, the more connected people would result in a better mesh.
Idjits.
know that I am going to say is going to be very popular but here goes anyway
I think a federal investment in public WIFI in all major urban areas would pay for itself in a few years, given greater economic and educational opportunity.
This is my sig.
That is not entirely correct, OLSR does have problems with numbers close to 1000 nodes. However, there is a new protocol in development to provide a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking (B.A.T.M.A.N. [1]).
[1] https://www.open-mesh.net/batman
I worked closely on the system in Philadelphia from a design and deployment perspective for quite some time as well as many other MESH/WiFi systems throughout the country. While I'm not going to get into the technical limitations since they can be debated endlessly, I think the majority of Earthlink's issues stemmed from their business model. There simply are no guaranteed dollars in the model they designed these systems on. You cannot expect users with the vast array of options they have to choose a system such as the one in Philly or any others throughout the country. They had high hopes for their subscriber counts, thinking that they can penetrate low-income areas by subsidizing the costs of PC's and laptops (bridging the digital divide). Ultimately, I believe technical users had little interest because they don't want to pay the high monthly costs and be tethered to a city when their alternatives can be fairly easier afforded with far fewer limitations. Low income users pay a much smaller monthly fee but I'd be very interested to see just how many have signed on, I can't imagine many have. Surely, the local gangs would see far greater benefit in it, I could think of dozens of uses they could immediately get out of such a system. Instead, such a system should have been designed with public safety and utility in mind. Yes, there are even issues with that and it could lead to a whole other discussion, but it's a step in the right direction. But had Earthlink used public safety as their base (traffic incident cameras, crime watch, etc.) they could guarantee a certain amount of dollars and open a lower percentage of the bandwidth for public usage. I believe it's exactly where they're headed now that the business model has been exposed as a poor one.
This has been the case for years. Also, Cities don't make money from roads or sidewalks, yet people expect that to be part of what they 'get' when they go shopping.
Either treat them like roads, or give an incentive to business to provide them for there customer and the city could only lay out the plan. a plan would be needed to ensure there not stepping on each others toes in any manner.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on