Municipal Wi-Fi's (Near-) Demise; Why Is Anyone Surprised?

Over 2.5 years ago, I wrote an (admittedly) intentionally controversial post in which, by linking WiMAX and VoIP, I predicted that the combo would likely (eventually) become a credible competitor to today’s cellular voice services. My forecast predated by nearly 1.5 years Sprint’s August 6, 2006 embrace of WiMAX, which (I’m not shy to say) neatly validated my theory…though WiMAX’s up-and-down fortunes since then would leave any investor seasick (and gives analysts like me a migraine).

I’ll touch on WiMAX in my upcoming early-February mobile video cover story. Right now, however, my focus is on Wi-Fi, which I suggested back in May 2005 might work in tandem with WiMAX to ensure robust (albeit stationary-operation) coverage throughout a given region. For the past 2.5+ years, I’ve also been following the trials and tribulations of (supposedly) pervasive Wi-Fi deployments, both by businesses (T-Mobile’s HotSpot, for example, or AT&T Wi-Fi, both of which I have memberships in, or Boingo) or municipal (see Maury Wright’s recent editorial and blog comments).

I’ve watched Google roll out its free service in Mountain View, CA, and have personally used it a number of times (with underwhelming results). I’ve tracked the ups and downs of implementations (and planned implementations) in Anaheim, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco, and other domestic cities, as well as internationally in such places as London, Mexico City and Paris. Earthlink is on the ropes. Locales with trial-to-full build-outs report poor reception in most areas, too-strong reception in others (which, among other things, clobbers individuals’ home-based Wi-Fi networks…here’s another case study…along with interfering with other 2.4 GHz-based devices). And regardless of reception, the network itself is either overwhelmed with users (translating to excessive latencies, slow and frequently aborted uploads and downloads, etc) or rife with folks complaining that IT has dared to block high-bandwidth services such as Bittorrent.

To which I have to ask; is any of this a surprise? Municipalities are loath to raise taxes on their citizens or float bonds (either or both of which would be necessary with a municipality-implemented Wi-Fi network), for fear of incurring wrath at council meetings and the polls. Therefore, they outsource the network implementation to a company like Earthlink or Google. That company needs to ensure its shareholders a reasonable return on investment, so it does things like:

• Throttling bandwidth for ‘free’ accounts to levels barely above POTS dialup speeds, to encourage paid account cultivation
• Dishing out location- and individual-based targeted advertising for ‘free’ accounts, which incurs privacy concerns, and
• Blocking access to competitive services such as Skype.

Business issues aside, I’m amazed at how casually and over-enthusiastically folks seem to have estimated Wi-Fi’s range, wall-penetration capability and other technical attributes. There’s a reason, after all, why a 2,000 square foot residence requires four Wi-Fi access points. And there’s an in-contrast reason (robust dispersion not only outside a residence but within it) why bid candidates are salivating over the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction. More access points means more cost, both of the wireless transceivers themselves and of the wired infrastructure feeding them, along with more pole-usage permission rights to secure (an issue that Ricochet’s former employees and partners remember well, I’d wager).

Do you harbor any substantial hopes for municipal Wi-Fi, and if so why?

Followup: For any of you who are poised to respond to my post with exhortations on the wonders of wireless mesh setups, first read my impressions of a Wi-Fi repeater, specifically focusing on the bandwidth, latency and overall connection reliability impacts. Mesh networks use the exact same technology, with the exact same downsides, folks.