Weigh in on wi-fi

Katrina,

Carrboro has two low-income neighborhoods in the downtown area (Lloyd Street area and Carr Court) as well as many many low-to-middle income families living in the mill village area. And we're all talking about community wide networking that starts out in downtown.

Yes, but the wifi doesn't reach Lloyd or Carr, and the budget at least through the end of the year ( fiscal '05-06) doesn't include any provisions to expand it to those neighborhoods- neither does any of the strategic planning documents that have been made public by the town. There is also no mention anywhere in town documents of access for needy families to low cost hardware. So, as it stands, it is definitely a benefit for very few who already have much.

I could get behind wi-fi if it was targeted either specifically at low-income neightborhoods (along with education and possibly low-cost wireless cards), or if it was community-wide. The wi-fi could be specifically targeted to help lower to middle income people, or as a benefit to the entire town (remember that both towns are quite large, and current wi-fi technology would require *thousands* of antennas or access points). As is, wi-fi "downtown" makes no sense for either Chapel Hill or Carrboro.
Another thing that could happen, if anybody knew that Carrboro's wireless program actually exists, would be a grassroots mesh network. This would involve individuals buying a cheap antenna/repeater combo from somewhere like Intrex and mounting it high on their building. The way this works is that that person would get to use the wireless signal, but they'd also serve as an access point for other people, so that the wireless signal could "leapfrog" from user to user. I had actually offered the use of the roof of our building as one of the first access points for Carrboro's network, but with the stipulation that reliability problems were addressed first. Unfortunately, there was no interest from either individuals or the town.
Whatever happens with wireless, the FIRST step should be a survey to see if 1. people want wireless and 2. if people expect to actually USE it.

Frank,

This grassroots mesh network is an interesting idea. Do you have websites available where I could read up on this. I'll google it, but I always find it helpful if I get the websites from people who are interested in a subject (it works as a quality control filter).

Specifically, I would love to know how far these antennas can transmit their signals, how much they cost, etc.

Could you induce people to purchase and set them up by offering them free broadband access? It sure would be a great way to make it happen quickly and cheaply (for the taxpayers in general).

You can read about a successful mesh implementation here:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/roofnet/design/
There are several more, and several more recent, but this is the most thorough information.
A basic repeater can be bought anywhere. Here's an example of one:
http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=292
It captures the wireless signal so that you can use it for your own use, and the rebroadcasts it. A bunch of people with these would instantly have a mesh network.
Again, I suggested this to the TOC Wireless program a few years ago, but there was no interest. But really, the people don't need any kind of government involvement at all to extend the current Carrboro wireless access points. The only problem is that the current system isn't particularly stable or reliable. In order for people to get behind this, and spend a bit extra for a repeating antenna to help their neighbors, the actual Net service would probably have to improve, first.
But there's no reason why a few motivated home and business owners couldn't create a city-wide wireless network tomorrow. It's that simple.

Let me weigh in on the private vs. public Wi-Fi debate.

I think the role of government isn't always to spend money. Public policies aimed at educating the public and creating zero or low cost incentives for public goods are examples of legitimate and vital governmental functions. These policies serve as catalysts to nudge society forward, not to revolutionize it, though that might be the end effect. The theory is that there exists a class of private enterprise that serves the public welfare but which is too easily performed by the private sector and too expensive (or novel) for government to solely undertake. That such endeavors profit enormously from the assistance of government, without the vast expenditure of public money. Government can help private entities by facilitating the acquisition of capital goods, reducing market barriers, and enacting favorable legislation.

It can be argued that this paradigm of public-private collaboration has prevailed in the short history of the Internet. The history of the telephone, electricity, and the railroad come to mind, too.

In their time, these now critical commodities took off like wildfire, but the roles of governments to make this happen remain mere footnotes. History books hail the success of capitalism, but forget to mention the determinative role of government to provide standards, incentives, seed money, and regulatory controls. (For one thing it's too damn boring to report on how government does this. Secondly, it runs counter to the colorful historical view of American can-do and innovation (commonly referred to as Yankee Ingenuity). in this sense, John Henry does double duty in American folklore--his mythos reinforces American notions of rugged individualism and presents the Industrial revolution's object lesson of the power of inexorable technological change: Luddites beware.)

Ok, if you've read this far, I apologize for my ADD digressions.

My point is that the wisdom of leaders is knowing how to maximize the use of governmental resources for the public good.

Wi-Fi is important for the future of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. I have faith that the potential for high-speed Internet applications has barely been tapped. I have faith in the leaders of our communities to effect change in this area with only minimal investment in public resources.

Frank,

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

David,

The other purpose of government is to protect and serve citizens. In the case of broadband access, the government 's regulatory interference has disrupted the natural market dissemination of a new technology (product). In other science-based innovations like air travel, government invested seed capital and/or used its power as a large market force to increase access and lower prices. In the case of broadband, the government chose to protect the earning power of the big telecomms, forcing higher costs on individual citizens.

At the same time, the inherent nature of the Internet has overwhelmingly shifted the nature of our society (knowledge economy). As the Internet continues to expand into every aspect of business and personal life, the feds continued protection of the gateway to that resources is becoming increasingly onerous in terms of both access and cost. Since the federal government continues its misguided interference in the telecomm market, it becomes the responsibility of local governments to protect the citizens. If they can achieve that and also lower their own operational costs (citizen tax dollars) and improve their other services, I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone could possibly object.

Terri,

I agree with you. In the name of promoting innovation (and less ostensibly, in protecting business interests), the federal government has decided to use its bully position to regulate the telecommunications industry in ways that utlimately hurt the public interest.

I don't have a problem with regulation that helps business--in fact that is what I am advocating at the local level. Government is integral to the disruption of market forces if that market is noncompetitive (monopolies, oligopolies, such as the Telecomms) or for the market correction of products with externalities (pigouvian taxes on cigarettes, alcohol) or in the instance I am advocating, for the promotion of a novel and largely untapped technological industry that the market has failed, for one reason or other, to efficiently and equitably exploit.

The federal government errs in believing that the telecomms alone possess the ability to innovate. Beyond that, its policies are broadly protectionist of big business interests, which is a role government should assume only in very narrow and unusual circumstances.

In short, I think it's fine for governments at all levels to assist industries when such assistance corrects irregular market forces. It is wrongheaded for government to heavy-handedly assist businesses for the blind sake of promoting big business interests.

If they can achieve that and also lower their own operational costs (citizen tax dollars) and improve their other services, I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone could possibly object.

Nor can I. But all too many times we get reminded in very expensive ways that the devil is in the details. As you have pointed out so well Terri, this is developing technology and getting it to serve us is seriously complicated.

If this is truly a campaign issue for the current election, it deserves more than sound bites. Voters deserve to know from advocates where they believe that it fits into our community priorities and why, and what it will cost. All too often, the worst of incrementalism reigns supreme and down the road, no one owns up to having their fingerprints on the policy.

Let's make the case, garner the support for it and then do it right.

It seems like the only thing we disagree on Fred is the ability of candidates to provide costs. Personally, I would prefer they provide the vision and the conditions upon which that vision should be implemented. Like you, I would like to know more about what each of the candidates sees as the purpose (beyond the grooviness factor) of the network, what role the town government should play in the design, development, and maintenance of the network, and the type of business model (private-public partnership, utility, free).

There is a general metric floating around about wifi costs--$100,000 per square mile over coverage. But if you read further, that metric is known to be very high and has at least a 20% variance depending upon type of service, topology, etc. A bottom line cost cannot be achieved without a feasibility study that involves concerted effort and investment. We can, however, get a more accurate cost metric that is more accurate than the general metric and the detailed cost analysis of a feasibility study.

Today's Editor page from Daily Tar heel on wifi

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/23/4333779f8156e

apparently having the political will and vision to explore it and get the ball rolling is a limiting factor.

No one can know the costs until a standard RFP (request for proposals is done). Soliciting bids is almost free to do.

Who wants to play - UNC ? Chapel Hill businesses? Carrboro? etc. will determine how much it will cost.

You can't write an RFP until you have a vision and review standards. IMHO, you also need a funding strategy in place out of courtesy to those who respond in good faith to the RFP. There isn't a lack of vision or political will. We've been working on this for less than 2 months, negotiating different points-of-view among some of the players. All the players want to make sure we do this right, avoiding some of the pie-in-the-sky attitudes Fred and Frank are concerned about.

I personally won't support the idea until I see some hard numbers and some real goals, but why don't the people who are interested in this idea just look at what Carrboro has done so far? I don't think you'll find the results you're looking for (usage is pretty close to -nil-, and hasn't had any impact on downtown from what I can tell), but it's been in place for a couple of years at least on a small scale (3 APs).

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2804112p-9248265c.html
"This year, Clayton (NC) plans to bring wireless to town buildings, community parks and a public square at a cost of about $10,000. If Town Council members support it and Congress doesn't pass legislation barring municipal wireless, Clayton could begin installing other wireless access points elsewhere in town as early as next year."

Google will provide free wireless for San Francisco.

Om Malik has the story and the links on his blog. This was hinted at in an earlier Business 2.0 story.

Om reports (from other stories and in context on his blog at link above):

The company proposes to build a network using third party hardware. Google officials say, its free WiFi plans are restricted only to San Francisco. The company does offer free wifi access in Mountain View and New York's Bryant Park.

“San Francisco will be a true test bed for location based services and applications,” says Chris Sacca, principal of new business development at Google. While the initial use of location-based services might be limited to more-focussed and targeted advertising, the potential of location-based services is immense, officials said. Sacca pointed out that the network bid was in line with Google's thinking on delivering answers anytime anywhere to anyone, and looking beyond a desktop PC.

When asked if this puts the company in direct conflict with incumbents like SBC and Comcast, Sacca replied, “I think a few months ago, we might have thought that, but we have talked to them and it seems the thinking is evolving amongst other last mile providers.”

The San Francisco Chronicle has a much longer and more detailed story in today's edition of their paper. I don't know how much longer that story will be available so read it up quick!

Gist: Google has a proposal in. So do others. The competitors doubt that Google can do the job. Others don't. SFO is hard to cover because of the hills and tall buildings. Google proposes up to 30 access points per square mile. SFO already has 400+ free access points from SBC -- more free wireless than any other American city. The speed of basic service Google Free Wireless would be 300 kilobits per second. Fine for handheld devices but a bit slow for some laptop applications.

rumors google is interested in running fiber optic networks too..

http://news.com.com/Google+wants+dark+fiber/2100-1034_3-5537392.html

any possibility, chapel hill, UNC and google providing municipal-private networks in chapel hill?

San Francisco is also in the process of installing its own municipal network. The contractor on that job told me one of the biggest challenges to setting up a muninet these days is coordinating all the independent hot spots. I'll check with him next week to find out how Google's announcement affects the plans they are working on.

Be sure to see Scott Maitland's Cellphone coverage before WiFi "My Turn" piece in today's CHN. I'm glad someone else thinks we need to do something about cell coverage. And maybe, because of its growing importance, it should have a higher priority than Wi-Fi right now.

there are wifi phones too Fred.

In providence they use wifi for first responder emergency communications..
all the kids and all the parents can get wifi phones.

there is actually some convergence of telephony with devices that can operate either on cell phone or wifi technology.

It is much cheaper to blanket a small area with wifi than erecting a cell phone tower (that no one would want in their back yard)

Yesterday's Independent had an article on Wi-Fi, "Wifi signals slowly spreading across Triangle: Cities ponder free wireless access," by Fiona Morgan.

She observes, "There are some basic questions to answer: Would this system be run by the town as a utility, or by a private company? Who would it be designed to serve? How much would it cost? How would the town pay for it?"

She also discusses the viewpoint of "tech board member (and non-candidate) Uzoma Nwosu:"

"He knows that cost, organization and management, and to a lesser extent security, need to be ironed out. Nwosu adds another to the list: constantly changing technology. WiFi, the current technology, is cheap but covers only small areas (10 miles at best). The next generation, WiMax, is much more expensive but covers much more ground (up to 30 miles). Going ahead with a WiFi system now, he says, 'is like us giving everybody a VHS system when everyone's using DVDs.'"

Good questions and good points to ponder, at least in my opinion, and in no way does questioning and pondering signify opposition to doing something; it should help us to do something and get it right the first time.

Fred,

The experts agree that the best coverage for right now combines wifi and wimax. Waiting until the next best technology becomes more affordable/standardized gives the telecomms time to lobby our pro-business state legislature. I have no doubt they will get their wishes should a bill ever come to the floor.

Carrboro has a network in place and if the legislature does take action against future municipal network, they should be grandfathered in. The question Chapel Hill needs to answer quickly is whether they want to reserve the same right. It's great to think about a town wide network and that has always been part of the vision, but the committee originally agreed to work on downtown first as a way of getting something on the ground that could be built on. Access to the neighborhoods close to downtown was to be explored, although most of the committee members have always been supportive of that idea. I find all the recent news reports from subcommittee members focused on creating a townwide network from the get-go to be very worrisome. The bigger the project, the longer it will take to design and fund.

Yesterday the CH Downtown Partnership voted to survey business owners about wireless. I've outlined my objections at:

http://localecology.blogspot.com/

Business owners are not the only stakeholders in downtown.

Right on Terri.

An omission from Terri's blog mentioned in her above post about the survey being done by the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership ---- we are working with Shannon Schelin, Interim Director, Center for Public Technology, UNC Institute of Government. She has extensive experience with wi-fi in towns and municipalities.

I look forward to Shannon Schelin's survey. I believe she had a hand in Carrboro's 2003 self-evaluation, right?

Will,

Since you support this survey, I'd be interested to hear what position you think the TechComm and the Council will be in if the business owners indicate disinterest in a municipal network? Does the Town just says, oh well, sorry to hear that but we're moving forward anyway?

Terri, the survey is going to happen.

I'm taking an optimistic view that the DPC's actions indicate a willingness to move, something I think we both agree is a good sign.

Sure, I'm interested in how the DPC plans to construct the survey to be both inclusive and visionary. If the results are overly negative it'll just help me refine my pitch.

Remember where we started from 18 months ago when I just started building the case for a muni-network? Look where we are today. The Tech Board, citizens like you and I, have put this issue front-and-center. Have a bit of faith - the necessity isn't going away.

Talk about synchronicity! I was writing the last comment with NBC17 going in the background when they featured a story about the WIFI in Chapel Hill (and the survey). The one business person they talked to was quite enthusiastic (Carolina Coffee Shop I believe). They'll have the rest of the story tomorrow morning if anyone wants to catch their take....

Terri, WIFI is in the air!

Will, your enthusiasm is infectious!

Will,

I think its great that wifi is getting so much press lately, and I still believe that we will eventually get something in place. But if you will recall, the discussion arose out of our attempts to institute e-democracy, a concept strongly grounded in the concept of increasing participation in local decision making. I'm dismayed, even discouraged, to see this project now being segmented off to a small group of individuals rather becoming a large, joyful community project with the different stakeholders all clamoring for what they want, competing with one another to have their ideas heard?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-06.htm
Citizen Groups Fight Corporates for Free Internet in US Cities
by Haider Rizvi

NEW YORK - Despite strong opposition from giant telecommunications corporations, a growing number of cities across the United States are preparing plans to provide free, high-speed wireless Internet access to their low-income residents.

While medium-size cities such as San Francisco and Philadelphia are already moving fast to set up wireless Internet systems--also known as Wi-Fi--New York, the country's largest city, is also aiming at reconnecting poor communities by creating free Internet access for poor communities and small businesses.

Such moves are being increasingly challenged, however, by big telecommunications corporations that perceive community-based free Internet networks as a threat to their economic interests. Companies including Verizon, Comcast, and SBC-Yahoo are making billions of dollars by investing in DSL and fiber-optic cable links to connect American homes to the Internet.

Some 86 percent of households with incomes above $75,000 a year have broadband access, compared to just 38 percent of those with an annual incomes less than $30,000, according to the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, a Chicago-based group devoted to sustainable development-related work in urban areas.

The U.S. Congress is currently considering a bill, sponsored by Texas Republican Pete Sessions, that seeks to stop cities from providing broadband networks under most circumstances.

As many as 14 states have already passed laws that prevent public entities from competing with private corporations in providing telecommunications services, according to the American Public Power Association (APPA), a not-for-profit utilities group that supports municipal broadband initiatives.

Similar bills are also under consideration in eight other states, including Texas, Iowa, and Colorado.

Aiming to keep pace with corporate efforts to influence lawmakers in Washington, activists are leaving no stone unturned to gather support for free or low-cost broadband access for urban communities.

Supporters of community-based wireless networks point out that on the global communications scene, the United States has fallen far behind other industrially advanced nations in using broadband and related technologies.

(snip, snip)
"If the efforts are successful, people will be able to pay five dollars a month--not 50 dollars a month--for high speed Internet," says Jeff Perlstein, executive director of Media Alliance, a non-profit group that supports community Internet networks. "Plus our schools, community centers, and fire and police departments will be served by truly state-of-the-art information technology."

Perlstein was referencing plans for the city of San Francisco, but could have been speaking about any number of U.S. cities.

Whether community groups and local governments will be able to overcome corporate challenges against the initiatives to build low-cost or free Internet networks remains to be seen.

More coverage of the issue in a story by Matt Dees in today's CHN:

Mixed signals on town Wi-Fi

Gerry (or one of you well-informed legal eagles),
Let's say that the town council decided that, for whatever
reason, they wanted to open a car dealership and
provide the service of selling cars to town citizens. Could
they? Or is there some law, perhaps the Umstead Act,
that prohibits such a move? You can guess why I ask
that question in this thread.

What if the town wanted to give the cars away?

This argument about the town's involvement is so curious. On one hand there are those who say the town has no business building/managing a public network. On the other hand, the whole discussion keeps breaking down because so many people assume that's the only option.

Will and I disagree on the business model that should be used for this project, but we absolutely agree on his last statement that such a network has value even if it does nothing more than serve our public safety providers.

What would it take to get beyond "should" we do this to "how" do we do it?