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."

30 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. If thats not foul play, i dont know what is by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:If thats not foul play, i dont know what is by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Normally, I might agree, but if they did back out before the contract was signed, so the cities should be able to fall back to the next bidder in line. If they did sign the contract, then there should be penalties for not abiding by the contract.

      Another problem is that WiFi just isn't very well suited for city-wide networks and it looks like these companies are finally figuring that out.

      The consumer access points being cheap and virtually everyone's computer having a client-side adapter doesn't help the cost issue enough to help make it affordable to the users, unless the network rollout is charity work. You need to rent utility pole space on every pole or every other pole for APs, assuming there are utility poles, some cities have been pushing towards underground wiring. You'd also need to worry about getting power to the APs. For every block, one T1 wired network drop for connection to the internet. I don't think those access points are consumer units either. Even if they were, the weatherproof enclosures are expensive too. Then there would need to be maintenance. I just don't see a viable, affordable competitor coming out of that. To me, all that makes WiMax seem viable, relatively speaking. Maybe if someone like Canopy can make pocket EC/34 or USB network adapters, then I think Canopy would be a better alternative.

    2. Re:If thats not foul play, i dont know what is by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      What? You're nuts. That is not at all necessary to create the network, nor have you even mentioned the greatest drawback to using wifi - you're only allowed to (legally) use three of eleven channels, which is all they're going to be able to use even if home users use others, and you're only allowed to transmit at low power levels by the FCC - if you use a high-gain antenna, you are legally obligated to decrease power if necessary to keep your signal strength below a given limit. All problems not faced by the hobbyist, who let's face it is not going to get a visit from the FCC unless they're interfering with the signals of others. WiFi is simply NOT the right tool for this job.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:If thats not foul play, i dont know what is by div_2n · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, you can legally use all eleven channels of 802.11b in the US. It just so happens that if you want to have perfect channel separation, channels 1, 6 and 11 are the way to go. I've sat in on a discussion about using 1, 4, 8 and 11 or some such combination and achieving acceptable separation provide the APs aren't on top of each other.

      Regardless, using the three channels and 120 degree directional antennas to cover the full 360 is the most effective way. That isn't cheap. Even if you roll your own using a WRAP board or some such thing, last I checked you can't get a weather proof AP with all three channels and antennas for less than $1,000. That doesn't count labor.

    4. Re:If thats not foul play, i dont know what is by Reaperducer · · Score: 2, Informative

      When the city of Chicago abandoned its citywide wifi network plans a couple of weeks ago, the thing I found most interesting was that it was dropped it mostly because of power issues.

      The city (via AT&T) planned to put the access points on light poles. But it turns out that in most neighborhoods when the lights go "out" they don't just switch themselves off -- they're actually cut off from power entirely at some central point that controls hundreds or thousands of lights by pretty much pulling the plug on them.

      To a techie, this seems silly because instead of a central sensor, you can have individual light sensors on the poles that can determine when to be on or off. But from a city-building standpoint, it makes total sense. It's completely simple, and there are far fewer parts to break. It's like yanking the plug on a string of Christmas lights. Low-tech brilliance.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  2. bah by Danzigism · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since WHEN does Earthlink know ANYTHING about providing good service for the public?

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
  3. Re:Unnecessary by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you just walk into random houses and use their computer or phone whenever you feel like it as well?

  4. Clearly I know absolutely nothing about this, but by Gigiya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When they make and win the bid, why aren't they legally obligated to follow through with it?

  5. city-wide wifi has its uses by erlehmann · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:city-wide wifi has its uses by hey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nice to see footnotes in a Slashdot posting.

    2. Re:city-wide wifi has its uses by fireboy1919 · · Score: 4, Informative

      using a routing protocol known as

      You're kind of missing the point in this example. Citywide 802.11x is not going to work. The protocol can't handle it. It doesn't scale up to even 100 users at once.

      The obvious solution is to use some other protocol.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  6. Re:Unnecessary by mustafap · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >I only walked a mile or so through mostly residential streets

    Try using a car. I recently moved to a small sussex town, and found an open network in a few minutes when I needed internet access to find an estate agent. There are two open networks in my new street too.

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  7. Re:Unnecessary by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I live in Kelseyville which is in Lake County, California. Lake County is home to California's largest and oldest natural lake (~9mi across at the widest point) and a bunch of grapes and not much else. We get lots of tourist traffic in season and it's just full of the local hicks, octogenarians and meth-heads the rest of the time. Obviously there are deviations but honestly those are the largest demographic groups in the area. I drove around the lake one day - no side streets, JUST around the lake - with my laptop, netstumbler, and my garmin gps12. It's a decent little GPS but it's based on pretty old antenna technology and has no external (that's the 12XL.) I was using a PCMCIA 802.11b adapter, a PRISM2 card made by Siemens, which has an external antenna jack but I have nothing to put in it. Not even counting hotels with open wifi, I was able to locate literally dozens of access points. Probably the open ones outnumber the closed ones about 2:1.

    I had similar success in Marysville, which is a couple hours to the east and a damn sight more populated. I suggest you try this exercise in a car next time, as the other commenter says. But I don't think it has much to do with population or tech-savviness. I think you just didn't cover enough area.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. City WiFi is for outdoors by icepick72 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:Unnecessary by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well Sheffield's in Yorkshire, and Yorkshiremen are noted for giving "nowt for nowt".

    Down here in Southern pansy land, there are open access points all over the place.

    --
    One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  10. Re:Unnecessary by Ron_Fitzgerald · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If their music radio was playing loud enough that I could hear it, should I still ask permission to listen?

    --
    ~ Ron Fitzgerald
  11. Give us some spectrum and we'll make it happen by troll+-1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. Lost edge opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!

  13. Fucked again by Public Private Partnerships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fucked again by Public Private Partnerships. by dekemoose · · Score: 2, Informative

      This isn't the same thing at all. In this case the city had to kick in a sizable chunk of cash, most (all?) of Earthlink's efforts have been on their own dime. Earthlink backing out of these agreements leaves the city without that mode of Internet access, but I don't see it as fucking over the citizens. They tried to make a go of something and then decided that it wouldn't fly, so they shut it down. Is there anything preventing another firm from making a go of it in their absence?
      In Minneapolis Earthlink lost a bid to build out a Wi-Fi network to a local firm. That network is just starting to come online and should be completed soon. It will be interesting to see how the local firm does with what Earthlink considers unprofitable.
      If what you claim happened in fact occurred, then that would clearly be a case of the city bending over and taking it in the keister from ATT.

  14. volunteerism by wikinerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  15. @450 by fastest+fascist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:Unnecessary by Ron_Fitzgerald · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe that is how to stop the vehicles driving by blasting music way too loud. Threaten them with a RIAA lawsuit.

    --
    ~ Ron Fitzgerald
  17. Re:Clearly I know absolutely nothing about this, b by eggboard · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  18. Re:Unnecessary by vertinox · · Score: 3, Funny

    there are no so many home networks left open that one can just use whatever is nearby.

    This is why my routers DNS entries redirect to a particular website with a particular image. You know which one.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  19. 802.11X is NOT Suitable for Last Mile by nuintari · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:802.11X is NOT Suitable for Last Mile by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am familiar with Canopy, as well as 802.11. Canopy works for what its designed for, which is definately not roaming random access for corportate users out of the office. It is "fixed wireless", as I am sure you are well aware. The CPE has to be fixed in place on a structure, and carefully aimed for best signal. Im not sure what price model you are offering, but I seriously doubt you are less expensive than either cable or DSL (even at their 'regular price' ignoring limited-time discounts), and in fac are probably quite a bit more expensive, and you probably either require up-front payment for the cpe, or require a contract that will pay for it over time. Not that cable or DSL are great, both of them you are supporting a monopoly (and with DSL you are usually locked into a monoploy, *AND* have to pay for a phone line you may or may not need/want).

      So if someone is in range of a provider using fixed wireless, and you are willing/able to afford it, and either 1. Neither cable or DSL is available and you want something better than dialup, or 2. You sufficiently hate whichever monopoly cable/telco option is available to you, then fixed wireless is a reasonable option. Oh, and that is assuming the cost of getting the CPE antenna info line-of-sight of the AP is bearable as well. If you are surrounded by forest or tall bulidings that might be formidable.

      Fixed wireless *cannot* be used by the average corporate user in a park at his lunch hour, or by police (or anyone else) in a car. fixed wireless hardware is pretty much never preinstalled in laptops, cellphones, or PDAs.

      What might be good is a hybrid. Offer fixed wireless to residences and businesses. Subsidize part of their cost by always putting an 802.11 AP with their CPE, and offering on-demand access (for a fee) to anyone that's in range and wants to connect. (Rate limit it so it doesnt eat too much of the capacity of the fixed wireless upstream).

      Of course both of these technologies are fairly useless without expensive towers if the terrain isnt hospitable to line-of-sight.

  20. Re:Unnecessary by macaddict · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you ask permission to use a drinking fountain? You know water isn't free.

    Except drinking fountains are the equivalent of municipal wi-fi -- paid for by taxes to benefit the public, or provided inside a publicly accessible building for the benefit of visitors. Unless it's in a private, non-publicly accessible building, they are generally understood to be available to anyone, with the cost of the water provided to strangers being willingly paid for by the owner.

    I think the example you're looking for is: "Do you ask permission to hook your hose up to your neighbor's faucet to water your lawn? You know water isn't free."

  21. Re:Unnecessary by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Time for analogy wars!

    Do you just walk into random houses and use their computer or phone whenever you feel like it as well?

    Yes, I do, if the computer/home has all of the the following attributes:

    -There's a big sign outside that says "computer in here" (access points advertise their presence)
    -There's an instruction set outside the house that says "To access the computer, rotate the knob on this door and push forward. Walk into home, then enter second room on right. Press power button, wait for authorization, and then use." (access points tell you how to use them)
    -After pressing the power button, a message says "request for computer use received ... access granted" (access points must receive a request for use, and then grant permission)

  22. Re:Unnecessary by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Netstumbler is awfull, all it does is send out probe requests which make it blatantly obvious what your doing. It also won't detect cloaked access points, give you any idea how many clients are connected to each ap or log any unencrypted traffic thats receivable by your card. Try Kismet or KisMac (mac gui version), it works a _LOT_ better.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!