Government Technology

    Digital Communities
    Industry Members

  • Click sponsor logos for whitepapers, case studies, and best practices.
  • McAfee

How to Make Municipal Wi-Fi Work



January 12, 2010 By

The idea of free Internet for all Americans looks good on screen, but the concept also raises crucial questions. And for the past few years, as cities across the country jumped on the broadband wagon, many government IT leaders kept getting stuck on the first and most important one: How?

Since 2005, various U.S. cities from Philadelphia to Houston have announced plans for Wi-Fi networks only to turn around and cancel them later because of lack of funding or subscription support. Many local governments refused to be anchor tenants because they didn't want to commit to buying a specified volume of service.

Not all municipal Wi-Fi networks fell flat. Some cities have succeeded in delivering broadband service to the public. For instance, first responders in New York can access files through the $500 million high-speed New York City Wireless Network (NYCWiN), built and operated for the next five years by Northrop Grumman Corp. Other areas such as Bristol, Va. and Corpus Christi, Texas, have also developed thriving models of a public network.

These success stories prove that municipal Wi-Fi can indeed work, but that doesn't mean there's only one way to solve the problem of the digital divide. In the past few months, two major cities have illustrated two very different ways in which a city can make that big connection.

On one side, there's Philadelphia, where IT officials announced in December 2009 that they would build the network themselves, more than a year after the EarthLink deal fell through. After their private model flopped, IT officials decided a public Wi-Fi neftwork would better serve the city by enhancing mobile applications and access for building inspectors, code enforcers and emergency responders.

But Minneapolis, which just completed its $20 million network, went a different route. Rather than build their own network, city officials chose to become the anchor tenant for US Internet, a 15-year-old international provider of Internet and hosting services. That financial security freed the company to build a network that would also serve residents. The city already boasts more than 16,000 private subscribers, said Joe Caldwell, CEO of USI Wireless, a subsidiary of US Internet.

"The difference with Minneapolis is it was never structured to be a free network," said Craig Settles, a wireless industry analyst. "They decided to step in and be the anchor. For a private company, the deck is pretty much stacked in your favor. You come in, build a network and make your money back however best you can."

The Free Internet Myth

As free as cities want broadband to be, the Internet is a form of public infrastructure that requires certain assets for delivery. Somebody has to pay for those assets, which brings up the second question that has stumped local governments: Who?

That was the problem in Philadelphia five years ago, when the city set out to be the world's largest Wi-Fi hotspot. The idea was that the EarthLink would invest $17 million to build the network and, through subscriptions from residents, the broadband provider could recover expenses and compensate for the ongoing loss of dial-up customers. It was a gamble. EarthLink lost.

In 2008, the company backed out of the deal with Philadelphia and many other U.S. cities with which it made similar arrangements, such as New Orleans and Chicago.

In 2005, a study called Municipal Broadband: Digging Beneath the Surface examined the financial viability of a broadband network in a city. Every model tested failed on a financial level, said Michael Balhoff, a former telecom equity analyst with Legg Mason Inc. and a managing partner at Balhoff & Williams.

"What we attempted to do was run a financial


| More

Comments

Pierre-Antoine Ferron    |    Commented January 13, 2010

Another successeful business model to be considered is the one using community organisations.

This model has been applied with tremendous success (and very, very low cost) by municipalities in Canada and particularly in the Province of Quebec by several cities:

Montréal http://www.ilesansfil.org/

Sherbrooke http://www.zapsherbrooke.org/

Quebec City http://www.zapquebec.org/

Pierre-Antoine Ferron    |    Commented January 13, 2010

Another successeful business model to be considered is the one using community organisations.

This model has been applied with tremendous success (and very, very low cost) by municipalities in Canada and particularly in the Province of Quebec by several cities:

Montréal http://www.ilesansfil.org/

Sherbrooke http://www.zapsherbrooke.org/

Quebec City http://www.zapquebec.org/

Pierre-Antoine Ferron    |    Commented January 13, 2010

Another successeful business model to be considered is the one using community organisations.

This model has been applied with tremendous success (and very, very low cost) by municipalities in Canada and particularly in the Province of Quebec by several cities:

Montréal http://www.ilesansfil.org/

Sherbrooke http://www.zapsherbrooke.org/

Quebec City http://www.zapquebec.org/

Christopher Mitchell    |    Commented January 13, 2010

This article misses a lot of important points regarding broadband and local governments. But perhaps the most confusing bit for me is this quote

"My basic theory is that government tends to step in where there is market failure and there is no market failure here," he said. "If it were as easy to do as the municipalities are suggesting, entrepreneurs would be all over it."

I don't know if Balhoff got the quote mangled, but it is painful to understand what he is saying.

1) Claims no market failure 2) Admits that private companies aren't doing it because it is more difficult than some think

The quote actually lends evidence to the proposition that there is a market failure because building a broadband network is difficult, which is why governments are getting involved (and yes, some have struggled).

Christopher Mitchell    |    Commented January 13, 2010

This article misses a lot of important points regarding broadband and local governments. But perhaps the most confusing bit for me is this quote

"My basic theory is that government tends to step in where there is market failure and there is no market failure here," he said. "If it were as easy to do as the municipalities are suggesting, entrepreneurs would be all over it."

I don't know if Balhoff got the quote mangled, but it is painful to understand what he is saying.

1) Claims no market failure 2) Admits that private companies aren't doing it because it is more difficult than some think

The quote actually lends evidence to the proposition that there is a market failure because building a broadband network is difficult, which is why governments are getting involved (and yes, some have struggled).

Christopher Mitchell    |    Commented January 13, 2010

This article misses a lot of important points regarding broadband and local governments. But perhaps the most confusing bit for me is this quote

"My basic theory is that government tends to step in where there is market failure and there is no market failure here," he said. "If it were as easy to do as the municipalities are suggesting, entrepreneurs would be all over it."

I don't know if Balhoff got the quote mangled, but it is painful to understand what he is saying.

1) Claims no market failure 2) Admits that private companies aren't doing it because it is more difficult than some think

The quote actually lends evidence to the proposition that there is a market failure because building a broadband network is difficult, which is why governments are getting involved (and yes, some have struggled).

bullsballs    |    Commented January 13, 2010

Here in Michigan, telecommunications companies were given monies from a special tax to improve internet services, but they spent it elsewhere leaving the taxpayer without good high speed internet. Typical of Michigan and its Canadian governator...

bullsballs    |    Commented January 13, 2010

Here in Michigan, telecommunications companies were given monies from a special tax to improve internet services, but they spent it elsewhere leaving the taxpayer without good high speed internet. Typical of Michigan and its Canadian governator...

bullsballs    |    Commented January 13, 2010

Here in Michigan, telecommunications companies were given monies from a special tax to improve internet services, but they spent it elsewhere leaving the taxpayer without good high speed internet. Typical of Michigan and its Canadian governator...

Ron Roussel    |    Commented May 27, 2010

A company in Oshawa, Ontario has just commence the deployment of a municple wifi network infratructure in two large areas of the city. Oshawa is very excited, these two target areas are low income high concentration areas that could really use this technology. Thier model is great, it offers financial assurance on the back end, and qulaity access to the users. Their model is designed to be duplicated anywhere.

Ron Roussel    |    Commented May 27, 2010

A company in Oshawa, Ontario has just commence the deployment of a municple wifi network infratructure in two large areas of the city. Oshawa is very excited, these two target areas are low income high concentration areas that could really use this technology. Thier model is great, it offers financial assurance on the back end, and qulaity access to the users. Their model is designed to be duplicated anywhere.

Ron Roussel    |    Commented May 27, 2010

A company in Oshawa, Ontario has just commence the deployment of a municple wifi network infratructure in two large areas of the city. Oshawa is very excited, these two target areas are low income high concentration areas that could really use this technology. Thier model is great, it offers financial assurance on the back end, and qulaity access to the users. Their model is designed to be duplicated anywhere.


Add Your Comment

You are solely responsible for the content of your comments. We reserve the right to remove comments that are considered profane, vulgar, obscene, factually inaccurate, off-topic, or considered a personal attack.

In Our Library

White Papers | Exclusives Reports | Webinar Archives | Best Practices and Case Studies
Digital Cities & Counties Survey: Best Practices Quick Reference Guide
This Best Practices Quick Reference Guide is a compilation of examples from the 2013 Digital Cities and Counties Surveys showcasing the innovative ways local governments are using technological tools to respond to the needs of their communities. It is our hope that by calling attention to just a few examples from cities and counties of all sizes, we will encourage further collaboration and spark additional creativity in local government service delivery.
Wireless Reporting Takes Pain (& Wait) out of Voting
In Michigan and Minnesota counties, wireless voting via the AT&T network has brought speed, efficiency and accuracy to elections - another illustration of how mobility and machine-to-machine (M2M) technology help governments to bring superior services and communication to constituents.
Why Would a City Proclaim Their Data “Open by Default?”
The City of Palo Alto, California, a 2013 Center for Digital Government Digital City Survey winner, has officially proclaimed “open” to be the default setting for all city data. Are they courageous or crazy?
View All