ISPs Losing Interest In Citywide Wireless Coverage

The New York Times is running a story about how hope is fading for the implementation of municipal wireless access in cities across the US. Major cities and small towns alike are finding that ISPs are withdrawing from such plans due to the low profitability of ventures that are similar to Philadelphia's incomplete network. We've previously discussed Chicago's and San Francisco's wireless status, and also some of the stumbling blocks other cities have faced. From the Times: "In Tempe, Ariz., and Portland, Ore., for example, hundreds of subscribers have found themselves suddenly without service as providers have cut their losses and either abandoned their networks or stopped expanding capacity. EarthLink announced on Feb. 7 that 'the operations of the municipal Wi-Fi assets were no longer consistent with the company's strategic direction.' Philadelphia officials say they are not sure when or if the promised network will now be completed."

Comments

Not really surprising

[TheRaven64]

WiFi just isn't a good technology for ubiquitous Internet, which is what they want to be providing. It's fine for covering a coffee shop, but for this kind of scheme to be cost-effective they need to cover at least a city block with a single access point.

They're facing competition at both ends. They can't sell the service as 'Internet access in that place where you really want it' because often 'that place' already has free WiFi. They can't sell it as 'Internet access everywhere' because they don't have the coverage and their competitors, the mobile phone companies, do. Always-available Internet via my mobile phone costs about the same, per month, as via my cable modem (albeit with slower speeds and much smaller caps). For people who are willing to pay for Internet to be available all the time, that's a much better option than WiFi.

Re:Not really surprising

[TheRaven64]

With time and experience, the coverage problems were resolved. And the cost of rolling out these networks was quite low - tiny compared to the costs of rolling out the 3G networks Coverage is an easy problem to solve. You just need a lot of access points. A really, really, large number, in fact. Walking around campus, I see access points in almost every room. Looking into the distance, I can see the cell tower that gives coverage to the campus and most of the city. Individual access points might be cheaper than cell towers, but the amount needed to cover a given area aren't when you factor in the cost of wiring them all up and the cost of sending someone out to fix them when they are damanged (much easier to secure and diagnose faults with fewer towers). Since WiFi uses unregulated spectrum, you also have to put up with the fact that microwaves, private access points, and so on can all interfere with your network. If someone starts jamming your UMTS tower then you can get them arrested.

Re:Profits

[ShieldW0lf]

That's exactly it. Capitalism hates plenty, and it will destroy it when it finds it.

Just a few more Linksys users

[stewbacca]

If there were just a couple more Linksys users in every neighborhood, we'd have city-wide access in every city in America! From my house right now, I "see" eight wireless signals. The three that are unsecured are all labeled "Linksys".

I still believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I still believe that city-wide WiFi is an achievable and useful thing, but only if it is provided by the people for the people. The amount of work and the cost for any individual who allows the public to connect to the internet through an already existing wireless access point is very low and the benefit of being able to use other people's access points for free is high. Politicians should not seek to fund commercial WiFi deployments. They should provide legal protection to people who share their network connection with the public.

wow

[nomadic]

EarthLink announced on Feb. 7 that 'the operations of the municipal Wi-Fi assets were no longer consistent with the company's strategic direction.'

Wow, EarthLink is still in business??

Re:Profits

[aurispector]

Free and open? "Open" I can understand, but "free"? Where did you get that idea? Even when I was in school I paid for access via tuition. Government supported access isn't "free" either, you just don't pay directly. Nothing is free.

Although I'm no fan of corporate greed somebody, somewhere has to pay for the service.

Sad, but not a surprise

[postbigbang]

When even Google pulls back, it's a bad business model even with advertising-driven models.

Face it, 802.11 is a LAN technology, not a MAN technology. Lipstick on that pig, even with cool mesh network attempts, isn't going to make it better. It was designed for local radial-cellular access by its channelization, and it's not good for covering wide areas. My sentiments go out to Strix and Firetide; both have decent models to make it wider. Cities have to figure out that broadband access is a utility, not an option.

Re:They're too obsessed with $ now!

[nomadic]

Because companies in the United States care about the $$$, not about innovation or advancing technology.

While countries elsewhere in the world are altruistic, caring little about money?

Re:TANSTAAFL - where muni access makes sense

[grumling]

Except that there is no penalty for everyone else if you don't provide tax-funded WiFi. If you don't collect the garbage, there will be a certain group of individuals who don't take their trash to the landfill, but just throw it out the window (see: 12th century Europe). So far, there doesn't seem to be a penalty to the city for not providing WiFi. That COULD change in the future, but it seems unlikely.

Most taxpayers don't want to see their money going to subsidize a few people who want to use a laptop in the park, even if that's not really the point. And using anything other than a property tax that included business property wouldn't be fair to people who don't live in the area (you mentioned a wage tax - which is almost always a death sentence for local job growth in a struggling economy).

If these municipalities were really serious, they would partner with someone who already has a wide area network in place (like Verizon or Comcast in the case of Philadelphia). For them, it would be incremental revenue, not primary. Pay them enough to get a couple of techs trained to maintain the system, give them some manner of exclusivity and limited liability, and DON'T make them provide end-user tech support. However, the muni could (and should) demand coverage minimums, QOS/uptime requirements, "openness" etc.

Of course, that would require one to admit that networking is hard, expensive, and low margin.