Wireless Community

Icon

October 25, 2005 • 9:20 pm 0

One Economy Interview on Muni-Wireless

I was recently interviewed for a research paper being written by James Sison of the “One Economy Corporation”:1. James is researching how cities and other municipalities can prepare themselves for implementing wireless and broadband services. I spoke to James about how broadband development in this country, and especially in New York City, is both slower and more expensive than in Europe and Asia.

I also commented to him about “a previous post”:2 where I wrote about the full cost of broadband in NYC versus the cost of a computer. In the US, we pay a premium for our connectivity, and this makes no sense when you consider how much commerce takes place online:

bq. New York City (Community Nonprofit Model)

bq. Dana Spiegel of NYCwireless (“http://www.nycwireless.net”:3) runs a non-profit group that “enables the growth of free, public wireless Internet access in New York City.” The all-volunteer network manages more than 100 wi-fi hotspots located in public spaces and underserved neighborhoods. “The growth of the global economy depends on how many people you can get online,” says executive director Spiegel. “Over a three year period, people will spend an average of $1800 in New York ($50/mo x 36 mo) just to get online. You’d think that tech companies would give computers and Internet access away, just so they can get consumers to spend more money online.”

[1]http://www.one-economy.com/
[2]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2005/05/05/testimony-to-the-new-york-city-council’s-technology-in-government-committee/
[3]http://www.nycwireless.net

Filed under: Interview, Muniwireless, News, NYCwireless

October 14, 2005 • 8:03 am 0

The End User Cost of Muni-networks

I’m a big fan of what’s going on in Philadelphia, but “this article in The Philadelphia Inquirer”:1 has me thinking that maybe all of this talk about the end user cost of muni-networks is, in part, wrong.

One way that most Community Wireless networks are different from other broadband networks is that they view their wireless service as supplemental. In other words, NYCwireless wouldn’t ever expect to be the *only* Internet service that a person uses. This is true for most CWNs, especially those in urban places.

As such, our pricing models expect that usage of the networks is an add on to a user’s already expensive broadband connection. This is one way that commercial Wi-Fi is different, and why so many people are unhappy about the high prices. Is the $30 per month (or thereabout) price of a T-Mobile Wi-Fi a supplemental service fee, or is it a primary broadband connection fee?

I already pay over $100 per month for my DSL at home. I’m not going to pay another $20 or $30 per month just to get Wi-Fi periodically. And neither are most other people (discount the road-warrior types who’s businesses pay for their supplemental internet fees).

We need a more sophisticated pricing model. And this is what bothers me about the Philadelphia prices. The Philly network imagines that it is the primary broadband connection for people living in the city. But what about all of the people who already have $40-$60 home DSL and cablemodems? Wireless Philadelphia should make sense for them as well, except they won’t really use it at home, just when they are away from home.

I think this is critical for the project’s success. What is the right price for supplemental Internet? I personally would pay about $5 *total* for all other broadband I would use outside of my home. I suspect that this pricing is about what other people would be willing to pay as well. This type of pricing model respects existing broadband service, and offers the opportunity for Philadelphia to capture more of the market. It also acknowledges that one company/organization can’t solve the universal broadband issue by itself.

Who says that I should only have 1 broadband connection? Telcos, cable companies, WISPs, and any other broadband provider *must* embrace this view of the market, because its the way things will be in the future.

[1]http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/12888807.htm

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, NYCwireless, Policy, Urban Wireless

October 7, 2005 • 1:00 am 0

Free Press Map of Community Internet Projects

“Free Press”:1 has put up a terrific interactive map of “Community Internet Across America”:2 that gives a nationwide view of all of the community internet projects, including NYCwireless, underway.

This map is a great way for you to see what’s happening across the country, and maybe in your backyard. If you don’t see a dot in your area, then either let Free Press know about an existing community internet project, or start your own. Its easy, and is a great way to help your community grow!

[1]http://www.freepress.net
[2]http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/networks.php

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, News, NYCwireless, Policy

October 2, 2005 • 7:38 am 0

Google Proposes Free Muni-Wireless Network for San Francisco

“Google has offered to build and run for free”:1 the entire San Francisco Municipal Wi-Fi network.

This validates what I have always been saying about city-wide, non-discriminatory internet service. More internet users = more online commerce and communication. If Google can bring online even a small percentage of the 776,000 people that live in San Francisco, they will have increased their customer base by a non-trivial amount. To say nothing of all of the additional online commerce these people will make use of, indirectly increasing Google Ad sales.

This is just common sense. Why wouldn’t every company online want more people to be potential customers? Every single internet based company should be banging down the doors of every politician they know to get them to support such citywide build-outs and put pressure on commercial internet providers.

This is also the reason why more online retailers should support all of the muni-wireless initiatives and community wireless groups: we’re helping to get you more customers!

Also:
“New York Times”:2
“San Francisco Chronicle”:3
“Wi-Fi Net News”:4

[1]http://gigaom.com/2005/09/30/google-confirms-san-francisco-wifi-plans/
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/technology/01google.html
[3]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/01/MNGG9F16KG1.DTL
[4]http://wifinetnews.com/archives/005898.html

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, News, Urban Wireless

September 12, 2005 • 2:43 am 0

Corante Posting about this Blog

Dominic Basulto has “posted about this blog”:1 on Corante. He comments:

bq. While most people agree that broadband Internet access is turning into a “basic human right” – just like electricity – the debate over wireless Internet access gets nuanced really fast. For example, it appears that NYCwireless is interested in “improving broadband accessibility and affordability, but not making it a public utility.” In other words, muni wireless is not the same thing as community wireless, and government involvement in the build-out of a wireless network might do more harm than good if it is not handled properly. Yet, that doesn’t mean that government shouldn’t be in the business of providing a public good if private sector providers fail to step up to the plate. Singapore, for example, offers an “effective model for how government could get involved,” according to muni wireless proponents.

He’s right when he says that muni-wireless is a nuanced subject. NYCwireless supports free choice for communities. This means that if your town or city wants to undertake the creation of a municipal wireless network, we think you should have that option. Our position against a public utility is really just specific to New York City, where we feel that a citywide network run by city government isn’t the best use of resources, especially when you have lots of non-profits working to address the situation.

[1]http://www.corante.com/newyork/archives/2005/09/10/the_debate_over_community_wireless_networks.php

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, New York City, News, NYCwireless

September 1, 2005 • 6:10 pm 1

The Resident Article on Muni-Wireless for New York

The Resident (August 29, 2005 issue, page 21, no permanent link available) reporter Tim Fox interviewed me about municipal wireless and what it might mean in New York. (The original article gets my last name wrong. I’ve corrected it below.)

bq. *Express Lines: The City’s High-Tech Experts Debate How To Bring Internet Access to All New Yorkers*

bq. _By Tim Fox_

bq. From Broadway to Battery Park and beyond, Web-savvy users can now log on with ease as low-cost Internet cafés, and free wireless spaces have transformed the city into a green pasture for laptop-wielding New Yorkers.

bq. “We already have an amazing network,” says Ted Bongiovanni, a director at the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (www.ccnmtl.columbia.edu), an educational technology department at Columbia University. “I see a very wired or wireless future for New York.”

bq. At least that’s the ideal. In truth, though broadband — dedicated highspeed Internet access — is available to many New Yorkers, the majority still has problems getting the service, according to Dana Spiegel, the executive director of NYCwireless, a New York group that promotes free wireless Internet access.

bq. “About 60 percent of New York City doesn’t make use of broadband, and 90 percent of low-income people have no broadband,” he says. “The reason for this is that most communities have only access to one or two big providers, and broadband can’t be had in New York for less than $50 a month.”

bq. Some state and local governments are making broadband a public utility akin to water, sewerage, telephone lines and electricity. The state of Georgia now wires up with Georgia Public Web, a high-speed Internet provider owned by the state’s municipalities. The government of Philadelphia plans to offer free or low-cost Wi-Fi, a popular high-speed Internet wireless service. But city experts don’t see a public utility on New York’s broadband horizon.

bq. NYCwireless is interested in improving broadband accessibility and affordability, but not making it a public utility, Spiegel says.

bq. Bongiovanni compares broadband with human rights, but says government involvement is a bad idea. “For those of us who live with broadband everyday, it is a right. But the city could end up being an investor in a technology that is antiquated.”

bq. At the same time, he says, “I don’t think that municipalities should be prohibited from providing these services if they decide that’s what’s best since what they’re doing is repackaging a public good. The industry is asking for a monopoly, and that’s just not right to provide at the expense of citizens.”

bq. There are effective models for how government could get involved, says Jason Fox, a senior director at Digital Knowledge Ventures, a unit of Columbia University. “In Singapore, it is a public service and looked at as a way to train the workforce for the future,” he says. “Singapore has been one of the leaders of broadband penetration, and people have been looking at that as a model for how governments can be proactive and effective [in promoting broadband access]. At the same time, I am wary of increased city involvement in improving broadband access and would rather see something done at the national level.”

bq. Thus, far national and local efforts have been limited. In a March 26, 2004, speech, President George W. Bush promised universal broadband access by 2007 and extended an Internet-tax ban for two years. Meanwhile, a one-year city task force created on April 14 by the City Council committee for technology in government will advise the mayor on making Internet accessible to New Yorkers. But committee chairwoman and task-force member Gale A. Brewer says the city has no plans to make broadband a public utility.

bq. Fox, however, says things might not be so bad after all. “I am not convinced that New York City has a real problem. [We have] the fourth-largest broadband connection in the country,” he says. “Sixty-six percent of computer users are connected. That tells me that it is not a major concern. There are much more pressing issues the city has to deal with — ground zero, the state of the schools, the rapidly declining subway infrastructure — to me those are all more important. Broadband would not even rate in the top 10.”

Filed under: Interview, Muniwireless, NYCwireless

August 28, 2005 • 9:34 pm 0

New York Post Interview: Cities, Providers War Over Wi-Fi as Utility

The “New York Post has an article”:1 by Sam Gustin about Wi-Fi as a public utility. I was interviewed about the work NYCwireless has done:

bq. But Executive Director of NYCwireless Dana Spiegel worries that, contrary to perceptions of a connected city, many are left out. “Only 10 percent of low-income families in New York City have access to broadband, because Time Warner and Verizon keep prices for broadband artificially high.”

bq. “Just like the grass and the trees and the benches are provided by the city,” Spiegel said, “we think that broadband Internet access should be provided as well.”

[1]http://www.nypost.com/business/51774.htm

Filed under: Community Wireless, Interview, Muniwireless, New York City, News, NYCwireless

August 14, 2005 • 7:13 pm 0

Bruce Fein's New York Times Letter to the Editor

Bruce Fein, a former general counsel for the FCC under President Reagan, “published a letter to the editor”:2 in today’s New York Times. He claims that Nicholas D. Kristof’s recent column “wrongly chastises New York for neglecting to emulate the citywide wireless networks in rural Oregon” due to far greater cost of deploying Wi-Fi in populated urban areas.

While Mr. Fein is correct in stating that Wi-Fi in New York would be more costly than in, say, Philadelphia (as I have written previously in this blog “here”:3 and “here”:4), his claim that it would cost $1 billion is way off the mark. Yes, New York City recently put out an RFP for a $1 billion wireless network for police, fire, and emergency rescue use. This network is intended to be private and secure, and won’t likely use Wi-Fi (it certainly won’t use Wi-Fi in the normal 802.11a/b/g bands).

From where is Mr. Fein getting his $1 billion figure? “According to JupiterResearch”:5, the cost of building and maintaining a municipal wireless network is $150,000 per square mile over five years. “Sascha Meinrath of CUWiN claims”:6 that a network with a density of 142 nodes per square mile would cost about $49,700. If we take these as a low and a high estimate, we wind up with a total cost for NYC between $15 million and $50 million. Even if we triple the JupiterResearch cost estimates, we don’t come even close to Mr. Fein’s number.

Furthermore, Mr. Fein’s claim that such a network would be entirely Wi-Fi is misinformed. Such a network should use whatever wireless and wired technologies are appropriate. Wi-Fi happens to be the best solution for getting internet access over the “last 100 yards”. As for competition, New York could be the city that encourages the most R&D in wireless, if only the City created the right environment, perhaps by opening up more light-pole franchises at an affordable rate.

All of this doesn’t address the most important issue: only about 35% of New Yorkers have broadband, and only 10% of low-income families in New York City have broadband. And this is the most connected city in the country! We should be demanding that the Mayor and everyone else in our City Government address this situation! Wi-Fi, WiMax, Wi-whatever—wireline or wireless—it doesn’t matter. In fact, any viable solution will make use of all of these technologies, as well as some others that aren’t even released yet.

We shouldn’t look at this problem as being so large and costly that we can’t address it. We can start small. “NYCwireless”:7 and its partners have brought free Wi-Fi to many City parks and other public spaces. And we continue to bring public Wi-Fi to low income buildings and other neighborhoods. Working together, “we”:8 (and every single New Yorker) can make a difference.

[1]http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=32
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/l14wifi.html
[3]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2005/07/20/how-to-bring-an-affordable-broadband-isp-into-new-york-city/
[4]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2005/06/22/why-mesh-based-wireless-networks-are-ideal-for-new-york/
[5]http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3518071
[6]http://www.saschameinrath.com/2005_04_29_15_40__crunching_numbers_cuwin_vs_tropos_–_costs_to_wireless_1-square_mile
[7]http://www.nycwireless.net
[8]http://www.nyc.gov/

Filed under: Community Wireless, Mesh, Muniwireless, New York City, News

August 14, 2005 • 3:50 am 0

InternetWeek Interview

I was recently interviewed by Christopher Heun for “an article in InternetWeek”:1 about Municipal Wireless.

bq. A lot of cities are getting involved in this specifically because they’ve been lied to and burned by the telecom companies, and they’ve thrown up their hands and said enough,” says Dana Spiegel, a software consultant and executive director of NYCwireless, a nonprofit that has helped set up dozens of free public wireless hotspots in New York City since 2001. “If a city decides for the benefit of all residents that everyone should have access to broadband services at an affordable rate and if Verizon (Communications) or SBC (Communications) is not doing that, then the city should have the right to do that.

[1]http://www.internetweek.com/168601371

Filed under: Community Wireless, Interview, Muniwireless, News

July 20, 2005 • 11:43 am 0

How to Bring an Affordable Broadband ISP into New York City

I was recently asked by a colleague how an ISP like Earthlink can provide low cost broadband in New York City. The truth is that without help, they can’t. Let’s look at the two possibilities that exist: using existing infrastructure and building new infrastructure.

*Existing infrastructure*

There exist a handful of wires that enter most businesses and homes: copper/phone, coaxial, and electrical wiring.

Copper cabling is owned by Verizon. Because of an FCC requirement they must provide “common carrier” access at a competitive rate to other ISPs, which means that Earthlink can gain access to the copper and provide DSL. Earthlink would have to pay Verizon an access rate somewhat equivalent to (but probably a little less than) Verizon’s own DSL service, about $30 a month. Earthlink would need to charge at least this much in order to make any revenue on the service, so there’s no way they could underbid Verizon’s service. Earthlink, by the way, offers DSL in New York City at a rate of $19.95 for the first 6 months, and $45.95 per month for the second 6 months, which is an average of $32.95 per month for the minimum 1 year of service.

Coaxial cable is owned by either Time Warner Cable (TWC) or Cablevision, depending on which area of the city you are in. Over cable, Earthlink currently provides a cablemodem service at $44.95 a month. This service is essentially a rebranding of the Time Warner Cable Road Runner service, and as such, Earthlink must pay TWC an access rate that is close to TWC’s own cablemodem service, which is $44.95 per month. Furthermore, due to the recent “Brand X Supreme Court decision”:1, TWC is no longer required to let Earthlink provide this service.

Electrical lines are owned by ConEd. While technologies like Broadband over Powerlines (BPL) are starting to be deployed, they are still in their infancy. Even if such technologies were to be made available over ConEd’s power lines—and there are indications that much of New York City’s power lines and in building wiring won’t support this technology—ConEd the electric company is new to broadband service provision, and it is likely that they either will not allow a third party ISP like Earthlink to offer service, or will charge an uncompetitive rate for providing access.

*New Infrastructure*

Earthlink can build its own infrastructure to provide service. There are generally two components to a broadband service: internet connectivity/backhaul and last mile connectivity. Generally, the last mile connectivity—the line that brings the internet into your residence or business—is the most expensive part. There are options for backhaul that Earthlink can already use, such as dark fiber or leasing communications lines from a number of providers (Verizon included).

Last mile connectivity, in the case of wired service, requires digging up streets and sidewalks, bringing one or more cables into the basement of a building (in New York City, at least), and then bringing that cable up to the apartment or store that is receiving the service. This is expensive because it requires a significant amount of human labor, and because it requires lots of construction and politicking to get permits to do the work. It is unclear what such a network would cost to the end user subscribing to Earthlink service, but it would require an enormous investment on EarthLink’s part to even get 1 person hooked up. Furthermore, with the exception of perhaps fiber, such a network would just be a duplication of an existing copper, coax, or electrical network. Many buildings in downtown Manhattan already have a fiber line, so this might be a starting point, but fiber lines are absent exist from most residences in New York City.

The alternative is wireless last mile service. In this case, Earthlink would have to both select a technology—there are plenty out there that would work, including WiMax and Wi-Fi, and Earthlink is trialing them in other cities—and deploy the antennas. New York City, which is a large land area (303 square miles), has a secondary difficulty that isn’t shared by any other city in the USA: height. You can read a bit more about height issues that New York City presents in a “previous blog post”:2. These issues mean that there would have to be sufficient density of antenna deployment throughout the City in order to provide service.

Wireless solutions, however, are vastly cheaper than any wireline solution. Orders of magnitude cheaper. So much cheaper, in fact, that even a full City-wide deployment might be made available at an affordable (read $20 or so per month) rate to every resident.

Where can these antennas be placed? One option is to use the same deployment strategy that cellphone networks use, contracting with private land owners in the City and mounting them on buildings. This would work, but prices for antenna location rental are high, residents don’t want antennas nearby their apartments (the “not in my backyard” problem that plagues most infrastructure deployment), and there just aren’t enough enough locations. In fact, antenna deployment is so difficult that New York City has “_horrible_ cell phone service”:3. This is the primary reason why DoITT, New York City’s government IT organization has created a plan to lease City light-poles. Earthlink could use City light-poles for their network (they have already suggested that they’d like to), but the cost of doing so is still too expensive and too onerous to make it a viable option, at least under DoITT’s leasing requirements (the reasons for this are saved for another blog entry).

*Solutions*

In the end, the only way to bring affordable broadband to New York is to involve the Government. Either through requirements that prevent existing network owners from price gouging and other monopolistic behaviors, or through programs that enables cheap infrastructure to be created by new network providers. In the latter case, we can solve the problem for one or a couple of private companies by reducing the cost of leasing public space, but this really discounts the value of the investments we as residents of New York City have made in our public infrastructure.

Really, the best solution is for us, as a City, to invest in building more public, shared infrastructure. We have already done so by “laying down lots of fiber cable”:4 (there’s still lots that has gone unused). We should invest in more infrastructure that will enable lots of companies to compete to provide broadband to New Yorkers. This way, we don’t create another monopoly broadband provider, but rather create a means for lots of market competition.

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700415.html
[2]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2005/06/22/why-mesh-based-wireless-networks-are-ideal-for-new-york/
[3]http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01333.html
[4]http://www.nysernet.org/about

Filed under: Community Wireless, Mesh, Muniwireless, New York City, Urban Wireless

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 710 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.