The Journal Star ran two Associated Press articles on municipal wireless fidelity (Muni WiFi) networks, and neither article was very complimentary of the systems. It seems they’re not living up to their hype.
“They are the monorails of this decade: the wrong technology, totally overpromised and completely undelivered,” said Anthony Townsend, research director at the Institute for the Future, a think tank.
In other words, they have the appearance of being progressive and modern, but lack practicality when actually built out. Some of the problems identified in the main article:
- Lack of subscribers. There’s not as much interest in a Muni WiFi network as boosters thought;
- Threat of taxpayer bailout. “Cities might end up running the systems if companies abandon networks they built”;
- Number of antennas needed underestimated. Some cities have had to double or triple the number of access points to provide adequate coverage, “adding roughly $1 million” to estimated costs;
- Trouble penetrating buildings. For a variety of reasons, including stucco homes that “have a wire mesh that blocks signals” and just general poor penetration, subscribers have to buy a $150 signal booster to use the service in their homes or offices;
- Slow connection speeds. According to the article, the speed can be slower than cable and DSL;
- Limited features. A home-business user said her local WiFi service “lacks key features she gets through DSL.”
- Competition from private enterprise. “…[J]ust as Lompoc [Calif.] committed to the network, cable and telephone companies arrived with better equipment and service, undercutting the city’s offerings.”
Other than that, it’s a great system. Missing from the article was any mention of a large influx of “creative class” workers who moved into these communities because of their cutting-edge Muni WiFi systems. I doubt it was an oversight. Most likely the “creative class” values many of the same things as the “uncreative class”: safe neighborhoods, good schools, low taxes, business/employment opportunities, etc. I doubt anyone is going to move here just for the free wireless access, if it’s ever offered.
My favorite comment came from a Portland (Ore.) blogger in the companion article:
“For me ubiquitous access means I don’t have to base my life around wherever my office is,” DuVander said. “I tried it out as soon as I could and found that it wasn’t for me. The quality of the connection is not up to my standards.”
I’ll bet that if/when Peoria rolls out Muni WiFi, a certain local Peoria blogger will have a similar take on that system. Probably his big complaint will be that he gets poor reception in Pottstown. 🙂
Here’s the funny thing about being a late adopter of new technology (as is the City/County of Peoria): You get to set back and look at the mistakes others’ made and then avoid those mistakes. Also, late adopters have the benefit of using technology that’s more advanced and/or has the bugs worked out.
Peoria is going to partner with one or more providers, lessening the threat of competition.
Also, NONE of these competitors of which you speak is providing the exact same service, namely city- and county-wide wirless internet connection.
So now you’re in favor of Peoria being a late adopter of new technology?
And, as for the fact that no one is currently offering city- and county-wide wireless internet, do you think maybe those companies know something Peoria doesn’t? Like, maybe it’s not profitable? Maybe the business model doesn’t work? I thought you were for the free market deciding these things.
Madison, WI is having a bunch of trouble:
“Nick Berigan can see a Mad City Broadband radio transmitter from a window in his North Baldwin Street home.
Still, he has trouble connecting to the wireless Internet network. The service drops out frequently – last month for two days straight. And when he can connect, it’s often at speeds as slow as dial-up service.”
“ResTech [one of two providers] did well in attracting tenants to the WiFi and at one point had about 2,000 people using the service for about $20 a month. But about 1,300 people dropped the service this year saying they had trouble connecting.”
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2007/04/20/0704200288.php
Better a late adopter than a never adopter. This argument is laughable. It might as well be an argument against the very establishment of the Internet itself because in 1960, no one was using it.
Billy, if a private company wants to provide WiFi, that’s fine by me. I only complain when the government gets involved. Don’t you think this is best left to the free market, Mr. small-l libertarian?
Don’t you think that the adding to the infrastructure of the Internet — which is built around a government built backbone — is much more acceptable use of public funds than, say, $6 million in loan guarantees to a Caterpillar subsidiary?
What’s the difference? Either way, the taxpayer is on the hook if the scheme fails.
The Internet is NOT something created by AT&T and other telecoms in a free-market environment? The first commercial ISPs were NOT the big telecoms. They were small start ups and non-profit community groups that connected to the backbone that linked research universities to the military. The telecoms came along later, and now they (as well as Vonster and YOU apparently) are under the impression that mini WiFi is unfair competition in the private sector. It is laughable. All these ISPs are doing is selling access to a networks of networks by way of THEIR connections to this backbone that was created by US the TAXPAYERS. To say that the government has no business providing access to a backbone created and regulated by the government is silly. Arguments can be made about the viability of Muni WiFi. I get it that. But the telecoms do not own the Internet. Get over it.
Right. And private health clubs don’t own racquetball and swimming, so it’s perfectly reasonable for the park district to build Riverplex on the public’s dime. Whatever.
Look, nobody said that telecoms own the Internet, so I’m not sure whom you’re arguing in your last comment. My point has always been that Muni WiFi is not worth Peoria spending its money on. The benefits are spurious and the risks are many.
From today’s Chicago Tribune:
Full article at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0529wirelessmay29,0,7450462.story?coll=chi-bizfront-hed
A $3 million plan to blanket Lompoc, Calif., with a wireless Internet system promised a quantum leap for economic development: The remote community hit hard by cutbacks at nearby Vandenberg Air Force Base would join the 21st Century with cheap and plentiful high-speed access.
Instead, nearly a year after its launch, Lompoc Net is limping along. The central California city of 42,000, surrounded by rolling hills, wineries and flower fields more than 17 miles from the nearest major highway, has only a few hundred subscribers.
That’s far fewer than the 4,000 needed to start repaying loans from the city’s utility coffers, potentially leaving smaller reserves to guard against electric rate increases.
It’s a lesson for Chicago and other municipalities implementing and considering Wi-Fi projects. Across the United States, many cities are finding their Wi-Fi projects costing more and drawing less interest than expected, leading to worries that a number will fail, resulting in millions of dollars in wasted tax dollars or grants when there had been roads to build and crime to fight.
There goes that worn-out canard again about the gubmint building today’s internet….