Yesterday at the Muniwireless Conference in Silicon Valley CA, Abe Kani, Chief Information Officer for the City of Atlanta, announced the City of Atlanta is actively seeking a public/private partnership to deploy an affordable wireless network throughout the City’s 132 square miles at no cost to the City.
Wireless Atlanta will provide low-cost high-speed Internet access to residents, businesses, and visitors anytime and anywhere within the city. The City will also be able to use the network for mobile connectivity, strengthening public safety and streamlining government operations.
Mayor Shirley Franklin cast a new vision for the City at the start of her second term. The Wireless Atlanta initiative will help achieve the Mayor’s Vision for the City by improving the quality of life, promoting tourism and economic development, and leapfrogging city service levels.
“The Wireless Atlanta initiative will add tremendous value to our citizens, businesses and visitors with no use of taxpayer dollars…” said Abe Kani, Chief Information Officer. “The network will strengthen the quality of life for citizens and strengthen public safety through innovative applications.”
The request for proposal (RFP) sets forth the specifications of the broadband network, addressing issues including the network’s business model and services, coverage area, open access policies, network infrastructure, customer services, security and privacy, as well as contributions the network provider will make regarding the other important elements of the Wireless Atlanta strategy.
The RFP requires that no tax dollars be used to fund the capital or operating expenses of the network. Companies that respond are also encouraged to commit to launching and supporting community technology programs to close the digital divide.
Today’s RFP issuance begins a 60-day process to determine how the City will achieve affordable wireless broadband access throughout the City of Atlanta. Interested parties can visit and monitor the Wireless Atlanta webpage and download the RFP and other documents at http://apps.atlantaga.gov/wirelessatlanta/.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Saturday, June 17, 2006
MuniWiFi Update from Andrew M. Seybold
Commentary June 12, 2006
Andrew M. Seybold
Muni-Wi-Fi Update
On June 29 I will be driving down to Anaheim, Calif.for the ribbon cutting of the EarthLink Muni-Wi-Fisystem that will be turned on officially for thatcity. There will be speeches, press events, a bigblast and a lot of brouhaha for this event. After all,it is the first city EarthLink is turning on and oneof the biggest cities to test the muni-Wi-Fi waters.
I am interested in seeing how this system works on dayone. I'm sure it will work well, at least where we areto gather, but the real story will come six monthsfrom now when I return to Anaheim and try to connectto the system from a variety of locations. I suspect Iwill find a very different network from the one we areshown on opening day.
Why? Because by then the network will have settled in,more access points will have been added by EarthLinkand/or private parties who want to use Wi-Fi for itsintended purpose, which is the last 300 feet. It willbe interesting to see how the system fairs over time. Many cities are moving ahead with great expectationsfor Wi-Fi for the masses. New Orleans is the latestwin for EarthLink and San Francisco is moving forward,as are Philadelphia and hundreds of other cities andtowns across the nation. Most interesting to me isthat many are coming on line or planning to come online in the next six months.
You would think theywould want to look at cities that already have systemsup and running for information, but it appears eachcity only hears what it wants to hear.Before I go too far, I should say that I met withfolks from EarthLink who seem to understand that thereis a lot of risk involved. They also know, as doesGoogle, that they need to attract more eyeballs inorder to grow and muni-Wi-Fi seems to be a great wayto do that. EarthLink may have an advantage because italready has a customer service center and expertise inproviding Internet services.But I still believe the cards are stacked against themand anyone who tries to make a viable business out ofWi-Fi on a wide-area basis. Have you heard what isgoing on in Burbank, Calif.?
Interference is the ruleof the day. Consider the recent events in Sacramento,Calif. where the city council wanted the winningbidder (MobilePro) to amend their contract and fund afree Wi-Fi service that was to be paid for byadvertising without the city serving as an anchortenant. MobilePro's response was to pull out of theproject leaving Sacramento having to go back out tobid. According to press sources, the city kept askingMobilePro to match deals that were being made in othercities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco andPortland, none of which are operational and none ofwhich have a proven business model. I think MobileProis probably the smartest muni-Wi-Fi systems providerbecause it said no to the city.
MobilePro had agreed to provide free service tolow-income residents at 56 Kbps (dial-up speeds). Thecity was asking for speeds up to 300 Kbps and wouldnot sign up for an anchor tenant position. The systemis estimated to cost about $8 million and that is onlythe beginning. That was for a system that worked onday one, not a system that worked six months into thefuture or a year later. The quote from MobilePro istelling: "We can't spend millions on a citywidedeployment, plus annual operating costs of millionsmore, and not any types of returns except onadvertising." (Google, are you reading this?) When Mobile Pro asked the city to be an anchor tenant,its response was that it thought others were "comingout of the gate with an ad-supported free service, andthat's the way we want to go."
No city, to myknowledge, has implemented that type of modelsuccessfully. It has been discussed, but thedifference between talking about it and making it workare very different.In Sacramento, the winner is not the winner. Accordingto sources, the city will rebid the project withtighter requirements and try again, and I say goodluck to them. If I was going to spend $8 millionputting in a muni-Wi-Fi system, I would at least wantto know that the city would pay every month for usingit. I would factor its payment into the cost of thesystem and the cost of the money and determine whetherI could make a profit. If I could, I would probablymove forward, but today there are no models from whichto choose.
There are no companies making moneyproviding muni-Wi-Fi services, only companies thatthink and hope they will. EarthLink is a good company that has made money foryears and seems to know a lot about the ISP business.Like other companies, including AOL, it is beingpushed to find new sources of revenue as Internetconnections become cheaper, data speeds for DSL andcable continue to increase and the price per monthcontinues to erode. It already knows how to run acustomer support center and understands that customerservice is key to success.
However, it is talkingabout providing service in an unlicensed portion ofspectrum, giving away the wireless modem and perhapseven a device to help customers extend coverage deepinto their houses and businesses and trying to find aviable business model for this service. Anaheim will be a key test for EarthLink. Can it keepthe network's performance where it needs to be? Can itentice customers with slower-speed access to upgradeto faster access? Can it afford to keep the network atthe same operational level as day one?These are unanswered questions, to be sure. IsEarthLink willing, like Google seems to be, to losemoney on access to make it up on eyeballs? If it is,the economic situation changes.
If eyeballs are all itwants, or customers for its ISP service, perhaps itcan make a go of this. But if muni-Wi-Fi is supposedto be a standalone business that makes money, my betis that it will never fly.I think the folks at MobilePro are smarter than theaverage muni-Wi-Fi provider. At least they know thebottom line and know if they spend $8 million on asystem for Sacramento, they will have to be able torecover that money and make money on top of it. As Isee it, this is a difficult to impossible task basedon the price of backhaul and Internet connectivity.
The feeding frenzy for muni-Wi-Fi continues. More andmore cities are signing up and more and more companiesare pushing their products for muni-Wi-Fi access. Butat the end of the day, it is possible that the onlypeople who will make money on muni-Wi-Fi will be thosewho sell the equipment. Do these folks know how to build a spreadsheet model?Let's see, I give the customer about $50 worth of freeequipment, I give them 300 Kbps for free and I expectthe city or advertisers to make up the cost andprovide a profit. After I build the system, I have toprovide customer support and guide customersinstalling software onto computers with unknownstatus.
As a customer, I have to assume my wirelessmodem can see the access point on a light pole, toomany of my neighbors won't sign up so I will getdecent speeds (Quality of Service?) and the guy nextdoor won't go down to his local computer store and buya Wi-Fi access point for his DSL or cable connectionand interfere with the signal I am receiving (justbarely) from the light pole three houses down thestreet.I'm sorry, but I have visions of a small business thatreally needs email access not having it and my son ordaughter having a school project due tomorrow and notbeing able to access the Internet because there isinterference or my neighbor is downloading videos. Iwonder how I would react, even if the service is free.
I think I would expect it to be consistent, and if Iagreed to pay for it and did not have it 24/7 at adecent speed, I would be really upset.And I haven't even mentioned that each access point'sfinite amount of bandwidth available is shared. If myneighbors don't hog it, how do I know my city won't?In New Orleans where EarthLink is also the winner, Iunderstand I will be competing with the city's videocamera feeds, public safety, city services andcustomers who are paying good money for higher-speedservices. What do I have to do to ensure that when Ineed access to the Internet it is there and it is at areasonable speed?
Because we have very few of these systems up andrunning, we don't have answers to most of thesequestions. Time will tell. That is why I'm going toAnaheim on June 29 and why I will go back six monthslater. Stand by!
Andrew Seybold
Copyright 2006
Outlook 4Mobility
Andrew M. Seybold
Muni-Wi-Fi Update
On June 29 I will be driving down to Anaheim, Calif.for the ribbon cutting of the EarthLink Muni-Wi-Fisystem that will be turned on officially for thatcity. There will be speeches, press events, a bigblast and a lot of brouhaha for this event. After all,it is the first city EarthLink is turning on and oneof the biggest cities to test the muni-Wi-Fi waters.
I am interested in seeing how this system works on dayone. I'm sure it will work well, at least where we areto gather, but the real story will come six monthsfrom now when I return to Anaheim and try to connectto the system from a variety of locations. I suspect Iwill find a very different network from the one we areshown on opening day.
Why? Because by then the network will have settled in,more access points will have been added by EarthLinkand/or private parties who want to use Wi-Fi for itsintended purpose, which is the last 300 feet. It willbe interesting to see how the system fairs over time. Many cities are moving ahead with great expectationsfor Wi-Fi for the masses. New Orleans is the latestwin for EarthLink and San Francisco is moving forward,as are Philadelphia and hundreds of other cities andtowns across the nation. Most interesting to me isthat many are coming on line or planning to come online in the next six months.
You would think theywould want to look at cities that already have systemsup and running for information, but it appears eachcity only hears what it wants to hear.Before I go too far, I should say that I met withfolks from EarthLink who seem to understand that thereis a lot of risk involved. They also know, as doesGoogle, that they need to attract more eyeballs inorder to grow and muni-Wi-Fi seems to be a great wayto do that. EarthLink may have an advantage because italready has a customer service center and expertise inproviding Internet services.But I still believe the cards are stacked against themand anyone who tries to make a viable business out ofWi-Fi on a wide-area basis. Have you heard what isgoing on in Burbank, Calif.?
Interference is the ruleof the day. Consider the recent events in Sacramento,Calif. where the city council wanted the winningbidder (MobilePro) to amend their contract and fund afree Wi-Fi service that was to be paid for byadvertising without the city serving as an anchortenant. MobilePro's response was to pull out of theproject leaving Sacramento having to go back out tobid. According to press sources, the city kept askingMobilePro to match deals that were being made in othercities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco andPortland, none of which are operational and none ofwhich have a proven business model. I think MobileProis probably the smartest muni-Wi-Fi systems providerbecause it said no to the city.
MobilePro had agreed to provide free service tolow-income residents at 56 Kbps (dial-up speeds). Thecity was asking for speeds up to 300 Kbps and wouldnot sign up for an anchor tenant position. The systemis estimated to cost about $8 million and that is onlythe beginning. That was for a system that worked onday one, not a system that worked six months into thefuture or a year later. The quote from MobilePro istelling: "We can't spend millions on a citywidedeployment, plus annual operating costs of millionsmore, and not any types of returns except onadvertising." (Google, are you reading this?) When Mobile Pro asked the city to be an anchor tenant,its response was that it thought others were "comingout of the gate with an ad-supported free service, andthat's the way we want to go."
No city, to myknowledge, has implemented that type of modelsuccessfully. It has been discussed, but thedifference between talking about it and making it workare very different.In Sacramento, the winner is not the winner. Accordingto sources, the city will rebid the project withtighter requirements and try again, and I say goodluck to them. If I was going to spend $8 millionputting in a muni-Wi-Fi system, I would at least wantto know that the city would pay every month for usingit. I would factor its payment into the cost of thesystem and the cost of the money and determine whetherI could make a profit. If I could, I would probablymove forward, but today there are no models from whichto choose.
There are no companies making moneyproviding muni-Wi-Fi services, only companies thatthink and hope they will. EarthLink is a good company that has made money foryears and seems to know a lot about the ISP business.Like other companies, including AOL, it is beingpushed to find new sources of revenue as Internetconnections become cheaper, data speeds for DSL andcable continue to increase and the price per monthcontinues to erode. It already knows how to run acustomer support center and understands that customerservice is key to success.
However, it is talkingabout providing service in an unlicensed portion ofspectrum, giving away the wireless modem and perhapseven a device to help customers extend coverage deepinto their houses and businesses and trying to find aviable business model for this service. Anaheim will be a key test for EarthLink. Can it keepthe network's performance where it needs to be? Can itentice customers with slower-speed access to upgradeto faster access? Can it afford to keep the network atthe same operational level as day one?These are unanswered questions, to be sure. IsEarthLink willing, like Google seems to be, to losemoney on access to make it up on eyeballs? If it is,the economic situation changes.
If eyeballs are all itwants, or customers for its ISP service, perhaps itcan make a go of this. But if muni-Wi-Fi is supposedto be a standalone business that makes money, my betis that it will never fly.I think the folks at MobilePro are smarter than theaverage muni-Wi-Fi provider. At least they know thebottom line and know if they spend $8 million on asystem for Sacramento, they will have to be able torecover that money and make money on top of it. As Isee it, this is a difficult to impossible task basedon the price of backhaul and Internet connectivity.
The feeding frenzy for muni-Wi-Fi continues. More andmore cities are signing up and more and more companiesare pushing their products for muni-Wi-Fi access. Butat the end of the day, it is possible that the onlypeople who will make money on muni-Wi-Fi will be thosewho sell the equipment. Do these folks know how to build a spreadsheet model?Let's see, I give the customer about $50 worth of freeequipment, I give them 300 Kbps for free and I expectthe city or advertisers to make up the cost andprovide a profit. After I build the system, I have toprovide customer support and guide customersinstalling software onto computers with unknownstatus.
As a customer, I have to assume my wirelessmodem can see the access point on a light pole, toomany of my neighbors won't sign up so I will getdecent speeds (Quality of Service?) and the guy nextdoor won't go down to his local computer store and buya Wi-Fi access point for his DSL or cable connectionand interfere with the signal I am receiving (justbarely) from the light pole three houses down thestreet.I'm sorry, but I have visions of a small business thatreally needs email access not having it and my son ordaughter having a school project due tomorrow and notbeing able to access the Internet because there isinterference or my neighbor is downloading videos. Iwonder how I would react, even if the service is free.
I think I would expect it to be consistent, and if Iagreed to pay for it and did not have it 24/7 at adecent speed, I would be really upset.And I haven't even mentioned that each access point'sfinite amount of bandwidth available is shared. If myneighbors don't hog it, how do I know my city won't?In New Orleans where EarthLink is also the winner, Iunderstand I will be competing with the city's videocamera feeds, public safety, city services andcustomers who are paying good money for higher-speedservices. What do I have to do to ensure that when Ineed access to the Internet it is there and it is at areasonable speed?
Because we have very few of these systems up andrunning, we don't have answers to most of thesequestions. Time will tell. That is why I'm going toAnaheim on June 29 and why I will go back six monthslater. Stand by!
Andrew Seybold
Copyright 2006
Outlook 4Mobility
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Wireless Carrier Broadband Bottle Neck
Some time ago I worked for Verizon Wireless and back then before the roll out of EVDO I worked as a Data Solution Manager selling mobile data services. Back then I noticed that eventually there would be a capacity problem at cell sites that had high traffic or areas where more mobile data users are trying to use the wireless data network for internet access. It wasn't really a problem when a 40k to 120K connection is all that is avaiable. Now consumers are expecting WiFi type of wireless access with 300K to 1 megabyte of connectivity. A recent online article All-you-can-eat 3G may not last explored the capacity concerns that wireless carrier like Verizon Wireless. On average I believe most cell sites have a single T-1 line, those creating a bottle neck. This would only be a problem at base station with high traffic. If a carrier was to provide what they are advertising true broadband connectivity, a T-1 back haul would not be enough bandwidth. This is where WiMAX would fit nicely. As mentioned in the article above, Sprint seems to be the only wireless carrier of is making efforts to accommodate and giving what mobile professional and wireless consumers are asking for.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Alvarion Announces Self Install WiMAX CPE
The BreezeMax Si is designed for indoor deployment, and works with their existing WiMax gear. The 802.16-2004-based CPE (using chips from Intel) handles both FDD and TDD (frequency time division duplexing), and implicitly can work with the same 2 GHz to 6 GHz range of possible frequencies that their BreezeMax base stations can operate in. FDD requires dedicated frequencies for uplink and downlink, while TDD uses synchronization to allow dynamic asymmetric traffic flows.
Rread the complete Alvarion Press Release
Rread the complete Alvarion Press Release
Monday, June 12, 2006
Mobile Pro Pulls out of Sacramento
Last year MobilePro won a competitive bid and later conducted a successful pilot project in the city's downtown area that provided outdoor public Wi-Fi Internet access and real-time video applications in Sacramento's Cesar Chavez Plaza Park.
MobilePro said that after being declared the RFP winner and going through a lengthy permitting process, the city forwarded MobilePro a counter proposal requiring that the company establish a free high-speed wireless network supported almost exclusively by advertising revenue without the benefit of the city serving as an anchor tenant. Based on the company's successful Tempe, Ariz. model, MobilePro's original proposal provided for limited area, limited bandwidth, no-cost service but required higher bandwidth broadband users to pay a monthly fee. MobilePro also offered an alternative designed to close the "digital divide" to the city's low-income quintile of residents, which included the city serving as an anchor tenant, but this proposal was likewise rejected by the city.
MobilePro President and Chief Operating Officer Jerry Sullivan said, "It is our understanding based on the final request of the City of Sacramento that the city would require MobilePro to provide free high-speed wireless Internet service to all residents and have the company rely primarily on advertising revenues for its profits and returns on investment. Based upon MobilePro's research and experience as one of the leading Wi-Fi broadband wireless network service providers to municipalities in North America, MobilePro does not believe that an advertising-supported business case is financially sustainable. At this time, we view such a restrictive economic model as incompatible with our original long-term plans for both the residents of Sacramento as well as the MobilePro stockholders."
Sullivan added, "We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Sacramento and wish the city the best of luck moving forward with this project in a manner that fits its needs. MobilePro will continue to actively pursue its access-based revenue business model with other municipalities throughout the United States in the future as we have in the past."
About MobilePro Corp.
MobilePro Corp., based in Bethesda, Md., is one of North America's leading wireless broadband companies. The company serves over 220,000 total customer lines throughout the United States, primarily through its CloseCall America, AFN and Kite subsidiaries.
An investment profile about MobilePro Corp. may be found online at www.hawkassociates.com/mobilepro/profile.php.
Check out MobilePro's web site
MobilePro said that after being declared the RFP winner and going through a lengthy permitting process, the city forwarded MobilePro a counter proposal requiring that the company establish a free high-speed wireless network supported almost exclusively by advertising revenue without the benefit of the city serving as an anchor tenant. Based on the company's successful Tempe, Ariz. model, MobilePro's original proposal provided for limited area, limited bandwidth, no-cost service but required higher bandwidth broadband users to pay a monthly fee. MobilePro also offered an alternative designed to close the "digital divide" to the city's low-income quintile of residents, which included the city serving as an anchor tenant, but this proposal was likewise rejected by the city.
MobilePro President and Chief Operating Officer Jerry Sullivan said, "It is our understanding based on the final request of the City of Sacramento that the city would require MobilePro to provide free high-speed wireless Internet service to all residents and have the company rely primarily on advertising revenues for its profits and returns on investment. Based upon MobilePro's research and experience as one of the leading Wi-Fi broadband wireless network service providers to municipalities in North America, MobilePro does not believe that an advertising-supported business case is financially sustainable. At this time, we view such a restrictive economic model as incompatible with our original long-term plans for both the residents of Sacramento as well as the MobilePro stockholders."
Sullivan added, "We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Sacramento and wish the city the best of luck moving forward with this project in a manner that fits its needs. MobilePro will continue to actively pursue its access-based revenue business model with other municipalities throughout the United States in the future as we have in the past."
About MobilePro Corp.
MobilePro Corp., based in Bethesda, Md., is one of North America's leading wireless broadband companies. The company serves over 220,000 total customer lines throughout the United States, primarily through its CloseCall America, AFN and Kite subsidiaries.
An investment profile about MobilePro Corp. may be found online at www.hawkassociates.com/mobilepro/profile.php.
Check out MobilePro's web site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
