Big Wi-Fi Project for Philadelphia
September 27, 2004
By BOB TEDESCHI
FORGET cheese steaks, cream cheese and brotherly love.
Philadelphia wants to be known as the city of laptops.
The city recently announced a two-year effort to string a
free wireless network across its 135 square miles,
potentially giving Philadelphia an entirely new identity as
the most wired - or unwired - municipality on the planet.
But skeptics said this initiative, as well as similar
efforts elsewhere across the United States, could also run
aground on its own ambitions.
In a recent survey by Jupiter Communications, 8 percent of
online consumers said they had tried accessing the Web
through wireless connections. About half said they had no
need or desire to do so. And because many of Philadelphia's
households have no computer - let alone a computer with an
Internet connection - the city's numbers would fall far
below those figures.
"Consumer interest will grow, slowly, but right now, they
don't have the equipment or desire for this," said Julie
Ask, a wireless analyst with Jupiter.
For those considering municipal wireless projects, the big
questions go beyond how quickly consumers will warm to the
service. Cities and towns are also weighing whether the
technology is as cheap and reliable as many perceive, and
whether these projects will lure customers from local
Internet providers, thereby undermining the economic
benefits such initiatives are meant to provide.
Philadelphia is betting its technological reputation that
these concerns will not derail its ambitious plan.
According to Dianah Neff, the city's chief information
officer, the plan is to offer free wireless access in
public areas, using Wi-Fi, the wireless fidelity standard,
but free or lower-cost connections could also extend to
households or businesses that qualify for economic
assistance. Ms. Neff said she believed the project could be
started by next June and completed a year later at a cost
of $10 million, which the city would raise privately.
"Obviously we won't tax people," she said. "But I've
already had extreme interest from banking institutions
interested in investing. It's a very do-able funding
structure."
Building a 135-square-mile hot spot to serve 1.5 million
people would not be too hard, Ms. Neff suggested. The city
would probably mount wireless transmitters on light poles,
which it owns, to send signals throughout the area. But,
she said, Philadelphia would not become a municipal
Internet company. "This won't be government-run," she said.
Among other options, the city could pass the project to a
management company, which would build and run the system in
exchange for user fees. "We'll look at all the pros and
cons for each possible model," she said.
The plan's proponents argue that wireless Internet access
would benefit Philadelphia in many ways. First, Ms. Neff
said, wireless connections would speed economic development
in areas where businesses cannot afford to pay $800 to
$1,500 monthly for high-speed T-1 lines. The wireless
initiative would also improve education, Ms. Neff said,
because children would have better access to information,
and parents could communicate more effectively with
teachers.
Because more than 70 percent of the city's students qualify
for economic assistance, she said, few families currently
can afford to do that.
"The reason we won't just let the market do this is that
there are societal needs that aren't inherently part of the
capitalist system. We need to be sure no communities in
Philadelphia are excluded, whether there's an R.O.I. or
not," Ms. Neff said, using the initials for return on
investment.
As to whether enough Internet users are sufficiently
enthusiastic about wireless technology to justify the
investment, Ms. Neff pointed to a pilot test in the city's
Love Park, in which 1,200 users logged on during a
two-month stretch beginning in June. "It was a very, very
positive response," she said.
Other city leaders are grappling with the question of
whether to follow in Philadelphia's footsteps. "I can't say
why we should be investing taxpayer dollars in this," said
Bill Schrier, chief technology officer for Seattle. "There
might be reasons. I just can't answer the question at the
moment."
Mr. Schrier said the city recently asked a group of private
citizens to help decide whether to build a wireless
network, perhaps atop Seattle's light poles.
City government may be poorly suited to oversee such things
as network security and customer service, he said. And with
the advent of new wireless technologies like the Wi-Max
standard, in which transmitters could send signals 30 miles
instead of 300 feet, the city risks adopting a system
destined for obsolescence.
Furthermore, Mr. Schrier said, a municipal Internet
initiative could hurt city businesses that sell similar
services.
Ms. Neff of Philadelphia said she met with executives of
Comcast, which is based in the city, and found them "very
interested in the contract on the management and support on
this."
Asked for comment, however, Comcast gave a more tepid
response. A statement from the company said, in part, "we
are looking forward to assisting our hometown to make an
informed decision."
Some cities have found success in working with commercial
Internet providers. Hermosa Beach, Calif., for instance,
last month introduced a system to provide free wireless
access, primarily to businesses and residents in the
downtown area. A local Internet company, LA Unplugged, bid
to run the project, which is being financed by
advertisements on log-in screens.
According to Michael Keegan, the Hermosa Beach city council
member who led the project, the council will vote early
next month on whether to extend the project to all 21,000
residents. If it does, he said, the city will have to find
an additional $500 to $700 in monthly advertising revenues
to maintain the system and raise an additional $65,000 to
buy equipment. "Which will be no problem," Mr. Keegan said.
"Even if we don't, this will cost taxpayers maybe 50 cents
each. Maybe."
The average Internet user will have to spend between $75
and $150 to set up their homes to receive wireless signals,
Mr. Keegan said. Wireless cards for notebook computer users
cost about $40.
Mr. Keegan said he was not worried that the service might
hurt existing Internet providers. "Should I care? I'm not a
shareholder," he said. "I'm more concerned about residents,
and they love it."
New York City has cast its lot with commercial Internet
providers. It recently awarded contracts to six wireless
contractors, who paid a total of $23 million for the right
to use 3,000 city light poles as bases for cellular and,
possibly, wireless Internet service for paying customers.
Citizens of Austin, Tex., are sidestepping any potential
conflict between city government and Internet companies
through the Austin Wireless City Project, a nonprofit
organization. Richard MacKinnon, the project's president,
said the organization's volunteers had set up 85 free Wi-Fi
zones, or hot spots, to serve about 15,000 registered
users.
Just as with the Hermosa Beach effort, Mr. MacKinnon said,
the project finances each hot spot with advertising. If a
local restaurant establishes a free wireless access point,
for example, when users log in to the network, they see an
advertisement for that restaurant's daily specials.
Even if local residents use that wireless signal as their
home Internet connection, "it's really strong messaging for
the neighbors of that restaurant," said Mr. MacKinnon. "It
encourages them to come in."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/technology/27ecom.html?
ex=1097316083&ei=1&en=e158a21cd5284c61
