Chicago disconnecting from Wi-Fi vision
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Bruce Montgomery
Aug 28, 2007, 10:34:24 AM8/28/07
to Chicago Wi-FI
chicagotribune.com
TRIBUNE EXCLUSIVE
City disconnecting from Wi-Fi vision
By Jon Van
Tribune staff reporter
August 28, 2007
Chicago is curtailing its digital dreams, deciding to back away from municipal Wi-Fi service after failing to reach agreement with either of two companies that sought to build a wireless Internet network in the city.
The move comes as municipal broadband wireless projects around the country face difficulties, and EarthLink Inc., a major player in the field, is re-evaluating its future in municipal Wi-Fi.
As envisioned in early 2006, Chicago was expected to become one of the first big cities in the country to blanket its streets and neighborhoods with a wireless Internet signal that would allow residents access to the Web in their homes and wherever they traveled in the city.
But technology is advancing and the cost of online access for consumers is declining so dramatically that Chicago has other avenues to promote more use of the Internet. As a result, the Wi-Fi deal lost luster when negotiations bogged down, according to sources close to the matter.
Chicago officials had intended that the city would offer infrastructure, but no cash, to a carrier that would use its own funds to build the network here. EarthLink and AT&T Inc. submitted proposals to the city, but after months of negotiations the parties were unable to reach agreement.
The companies sought a commitment from Chicago to be an "anchor tenant," agreeing to pay to use the Wi-Fi network to support city services, but the city declined.
Taking its proposal request off the table for re-evaluation "is entirely appropriate for the city," said Tom Hulsebosch, vice president of municipal sales for EarthLink. "We're seeing this evolve as we learn more about these networks, and the city needs to think about this again from its own business perspective."
It might be possible for the city to spend money on Wi-Fi services that it now spends on other communications, he said, but that would require rethinking the budget.
A few years ago when San Francisco, Philadelphia, Houston and other cities jumped into Wi-Fi, officials thought paying less than $20 a month to get a high-speed Internet connection anywhere in the city would find a lot of takers. They also thought advertising could support citywide free connections.
Results on both scores have been generally disappointing. In Lompoc, Calif., which activated its $2 million Wi-Fi network almost a year ago, the city signed up fewer than 500 users out of a population of more than 40,000.
"There's a serious dose of reality, much needed, that has come into play after all the hype last year about free, ad-driven Wi-Fi," said Craig Settles, a wireless business strategist and consultant based in Oakland.
The most successful municipal Wi-Fi networks are those devoted to improving public safety and other city services, Settles said. Helping less-affluent residents get fast Internet access also can be a goal, he said, but it requires much more than just firing up a wireless network. Getting computers and training for the poor is a greater challenge, he said.
"We think that municipal services and public safety are at the sweet spot for a Wi-Fi network," said Blair Klein, a Chicago-based spokeswoman for the company. She said anchor tenancy has been a key point for the company in all its discussions of municipal Wi-Fi.
A primary goal of Chicago's request for proposals to build a wireless network was to assure that all city residents had high-speed Internet access at affordable prices. Municipal Wi-Fi was one aspect of that goal, but getting hardware, software and training to city residents is also necessary, said a city official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because an official announcement is not scheduled until Tuesday.
The city already provides free Internet access at 79 public libraries and at public spaces like Millennium Park and Daley Plaza and will seek other ways to expand access, he said.
A Wi-Fi network intrigued Chicago as a low-cost method of blasting an Internet signal across the city. The system would deploy radio equipment mounted on light poles and would cover 220 square miles of territory. Industry sources have estimated that it could cost as much as $50 million to install the infrastructure and perhaps an additional $150 million to operate the system for six years.
Chicago never intended to be a leader in municipal Wi-Fi, said a city official, preferring instead to watch what happened in other cities and learn from that. Some of what's happening isn't pretty.
In San Francisco, bickering among elected officials has stalled progress for months. In Houston, where the city council approved a contract with EarthLink last spring, work on the project has yet to start.
As municipal wireless projects have hit one snag after another, prices for wired Internet have fallen. AT&T charges $20 a month for speeds of 1.5 megabits a second in Chicago and will provide connections half that fast for $10 to new subscribers, although more than 10 percent of residences in the metropolitan area cannot get digital subscriber line service because they are located too far from AT&T's switching centers.
Even if Chicago declines to back a municipal wireless network, city residents soon will gain more Internet connection options. Sprint Nextel Corp. is building a wireless WiMax network here that is due to offer service next spring. WiMax is a technologic cousin to Wi-Fi intended to cover miles of territory with a wireless Internet signal via radio spectrum, whereas Wi-Fi transmits hundreds of feet per transmitter.
Another new wireless network may be built in 2009 after a portion of spectrum now used for analog television broadcasts becomes available for Internet connections.
- - -
Stuck on the ground
Municipal wireless projects have faced problems across the country:
*In San Francisco, progress has been stalled for months as elected officials bicker.
*In Houston, the city signed a contract with EarthLink in the spring, but work has yet to start.
*In Lompoc, Calif., the city has signed up fewer than 500 users out of a population of more than 40,000.
----------
jv...@tribune.com
The move comes as municipal broadband wireless projects around the country face difficulties, and EarthLink Inc., a major player in the field, is re-evaluating its future in municipal Wi-Fi.
As envisioned in early 2006, Chicago was expected to become one of the first big cities in the country to blanket its streets and neighborhoods with a wireless Internet signal that would allow residents access to the Web in their homes and wherever they traveled in the city.
But technology is advancing and the cost of online access for consumers is declining so dramatically that Chicago has other avenues to promote more use of the Internet. As a result, the Wi-Fi deal lost luster when negotiations bogged down, according to sources close to the matter.
Chicago officials had intended that the city would offer infrastructure, but no cash, to a carrier that would use its own funds to build the network here. EarthLink and AT&T Inc. submitted proposals to the city, but after months of negotiations the parties were unable to reach agreement.
The companies sought a commitment from Chicago to be an "anchor tenant," agreeing to pay to use the Wi-Fi network to support city services, but the city declined.
Taking its proposal request off the table for re-evaluation "is entirely appropriate for the city," said Tom Hulsebosch, vice president of municipal sales for EarthLink. "We're seeing this evolve as we learn more about these networks, and the city needs to think about this again from its own business perspective."
It might be possible for the city to spend money on Wi-Fi services that it now spends on other communications, he said, but that would require rethinking the budget.
A few years ago when San Francisco, Philadelphia, Houston and other cities jumped into Wi-Fi, officials thought paying less than $20 a month to get a high-speed Internet connection anywhere in the city would find a lot of takers. They also thought advertising could support citywide free connections.
Results on both scores have been generally disappointing. In Lompoc, Calif., which activated its $2 million Wi-Fi network almost a year ago, the city signed up fewer than 500 users out of a population of more than 40,000.
"There's a serious dose of reality, much needed, that has come into play after all the hype last year about free, ad-driven Wi-Fi," said Craig Settles, a wireless business strategist and consultant based in Oakland.
The most successful municipal Wi-Fi networks are those devoted to improving public safety and other city services, Settles said. Helping less-affluent residents get fast Internet access also can be a goal, he said, but it requires much more than just firing up a wireless network. Getting computers and training for the poor is a greater challenge, he said.
"We think that municipal services and public safety are at the sweet spot for a Wi-Fi network," said Blair Klein, a Chicago-based spokeswoman for the company. She said anchor tenancy has been a key point for the company in all its discussions of municipal Wi-Fi.
A primary goal of Chicago's request for proposals to build a wireless network was to assure that all city residents had high-speed Internet access at affordable prices. Municipal Wi-Fi was one aspect of that goal, but getting hardware, software and training to city residents is also necessary, said a city official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because an official announcement is not scheduled until Tuesday.
The city already provides free Internet access at 79 public libraries and at public spaces like Millennium Park and Daley Plaza and will seek other ways to expand access, he said.
A Wi-Fi network intrigued Chicago as a low-cost method of blasting an Internet signal across the city. The system would deploy radio equipment mounted on light poles and would cover 220 square miles of territory. Industry sources have estimated that it could cost as much as $50 million to install the infrastructure and perhaps an additional $150 million to operate the system for six years.
Chicago never intended to be a leader in municipal Wi-Fi, said a city official, preferring instead to watch what happened in other cities and learn from that. Some of what's happening isn't pretty.
In San Francisco, bickering among elected officials has stalled progress for months. In Houston, where the city council approved a contract with EarthLink last spring, work on the project has yet to start.
As municipal wireless projects have hit one snag after another, prices for wired Internet have fallen. AT&T charges $20 a month for speeds of 1.5 megabits a second in Chicago and will provide connections half that fast for $10 to new subscribers, although more than 10 percent of residences in the metropolitan area cannot get digital subscriber line service because they are located too far from AT&T's switching centers.
Even if Chicago declines to back a municipal wireless network, city residents soon will gain more Internet connection options. Sprint Nextel Corp. is building a wireless WiMax network here that is due to offer service next spring. WiMax is a technologic cousin to Wi-Fi intended to cover miles of territory with a wireless Internet signal via radio spectrum, whereas Wi-Fi transmits hundreds of feet per transmitter.
Another new wireless network may be built in 2009 after a portion of spectrum now used for analog television broadcasts becomes available for Internet connections.
- - -
Stuck on the ground
Municipal wireless projects have faced problems across the country:
*In San Francisco, progress has been stalled for months as elected officials bicker.
*In Houston, the city signed a contract with EarthLink in the spring, but work has yet to start.
*In Lompoc, Calif., the city has signed up fewer than 500 users out of a population of more than 40,000.
----------
jv...@tribune.com
Bruce Montgomery
Montgomery & Company
Technology | Integration | Commerce
P.O. Box 10796
Chicago, Illinois 60610-0796
773-224-7898 [phone]
Montgomery & Company
Technology | Integration | Commerce
P.O. Box 10796
Chicago, Illinois 60610-0796
773-224-7898 [phone]
DSS...@aol.com
Aug 28, 2007, 12:01:59 PM8/28/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com, chi...@getillinoisonline.net, DKall...@aol.com, jst...@macfound.org, jhu...@macfound.org
In a message dated 8/28/2007 9:36:12 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
onepr...@yahoo.com writes:
City disconnecting from Wi-Fi vision
By Jon VanTribune staff reporterAugust 28, 2007Chicago is curtailing its digital dreams, deciding to back away from municipal Wi-Fi service after failing to reach agreement with either of two companies that sought to build a wireless Internet network in the city.
The move comes as municipal broadband wireless projects around the country face difficulties, and EarthLink Inc., a major player in the field, is re-evaluating its future in municipal Wi-Fi.
Folks:
What does everyone think about this? As you know the Julia
Stasch Report ("The City That Networks") stated quite clearly that it was
concerned with the "bigger picture" of a connected and Internet oriented
city. The Chicago Wireless wifi initiative was but a part of the larger
scheme.
How is the city going to go about implementing the
recommendations/suggestions in the Report?
Don Samuelson
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
Marlone Finley
Aug 28, 2007, 10:41:51 AM8/28/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com
This quote says it all:
"Getting computers and training for the poor is a greater challenge"
Marlone Finley
Douglas Digital.net
Bob Gallie
Aug 28, 2007, 7:42:48 PM8/28/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com, Chicago Wi-FI
All,
- 1. Apparently the metropolitan area already in fact has complete wi-fi
technology installed. The issue would be generating public clamor for
allowing all to use it. Cf. www.thetownofcicero.com/townnews The Cicero
Town News, June 2007, page 11. Isn't "Project Shield" just a few policy
decisions away from being the free public high speed network?
- 2. To generate public interest and start pressure should we ask people
everywhere to let their household and business wireless connections openly
serve all the families within their half-block ranges?
Bob Gallie
-----Original Message-----
City disconnecting from Wi-Fi vision
By Jon Van
Tribune staff reporter
August 28, 2007
Chicago is curtailing its digital dreams, ...
DSS...@aol.com
Aug 28, 2007, 7:51:10 PM8/28/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com, chi...@getillinoisonline.net, DKall...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/28/2007 6:42:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
b...@aaahawk.com writes:
- 2. To generate public interest and start pressure should we ask people
everywhere to let their household and business wireless connections openly
serve all the families within their half-block ranges?
Interesting idea. Another interim step might be to promote
the locations and coverages of the 77 library locations in Chicago and a map of
wifi hot spots.
The key to me is in getting folks to see the values in the use of
broadband.
Might also want to think of connecting wifi to the types of
multimedia promotions coming out of Flash Point and Experiencia - will get
very high profile coverage and Mayor Daley interest:
Don Samuelson
DSS...@aol.com
Aug 28, 2007, 6:32:58 PM8/28/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com
And convincing these markets that there is practical value in making the
effort - the most difficult.
Don Samuelson
Rose Mabwa
Aug 29, 2007, 10:47:41 AM8/29/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Don,
It is nice hearing from you after such a long time. How are you? This is interesting and disturbing at the same time. If the city can not go wireless, How do we even begin to talk about helping residents bridge the digital divide that is ever changingso fast.
________________________________
Folks:
________________________________
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .
Laura Mieczkowski
Aug 29, 2007, 2:03:04 PM8/29/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com
On 8/28/07, DSS...@aol.com <DSS...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 8/28/2007 6:42:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time, b...@aaahawk.com writes:- 2. To generate public interest and start pressure should we ask people
everywhere to let their household and business wireless connections openly
serve all the families within their half-block ranges?
I agree that this is an interesting idea, but we should be cautious. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) was finally implemented this spring, and no one knows how proactive the government will be about enforcing it standards. For those of you who are not
Laura Mieczkowski
Aug 29, 2007, 2:13:07 PM8/29/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com
I apologize for the half e-mail there, but as I was saying...
I agree that this is an interesting idea, but we should be cautious. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) was finally implemented this spring, and no one knows how proactive the government will be about enforcing it standards. For those of you who are not familiar with CALEA, the Baller Herbst Law Group and the Columbia Telecommunications group summarize the act as such:
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) requires providers of telecommunications services, Internet access services, or certain kinds of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to acquire technical capabilities that will enable them to assist law enforcement officials in conducting authorized interceptions of communications content or call-identifying information.
All communications providers covered by CALEA, without exception, must become CALEA-compliant by May 14, 2007, and must file interim reports by February 12 and March 12 to show that they are diligently pursuing ways to comply with CALEA. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has stated that it will not grant extensions of time. Parties that fail to meet their CALEA obligations are subject to fines and civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each day in violation .
There is an exception for private networks, however, according to WISPA's meeting with the FBI "sharing" is not considered a private network. They have instead decided to call it a "public service":
4) Is there any reason that rural WISPs would not have to be CALEA
compliant?
No. Neither CALEA nor the FCC has carved out a compliance exemption for
rural entities, so all WISPs and VoIP companies that fall within the scope of
covered providers established by the FCC in its September 2005 First Report and
Order must be compliant. Any facilities based ISP must be CALEA compliant.
The only exemption to CALEA is the private network exemption. A private
network is a network, which is not offering a service to the public whether for
profit or not for profit. If the network is available to the public, it is not a private
network. If you resell to your neighbor you are offering a public service. If you
share a connection with your neighbor and he pays half the price, you are offering
a public service.
This information and more on CALEA can be found at :
http://www.baller.com/calea.html
http://www.wispa.org/WISPA-CALEA-FAQ.pdf
DSS...@aol.com
Aug 29, 2007, 3:38:10 PM8/29/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com, DKall...@aol.com, cbe...@benton.org
In a message dated 8/29/2007 10:42:33 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
rma...@mercyhousing.org writes:
Hi Don,
It is nice hearing from you after such a long time. How are you? This is interesting and disturbing at the same time. If the city can not go wireless, How do we even begin to talk about helping residents bridge the digital divide that is ever changingso fast.
Rose:
Still lots of opportunities to explain benefits of the Internet and
train. Wifi is available at all libraries, many schools and
hotspots. It would be useful to map them so that we know just how many
places are already offering free wifi or other types of
connectivity.
Can also divide DSL lines to support a CTC.
Lots of creative options. Can move the all forward while seeing
just where the voids are.
Don
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
Dave Chakrabarti
Aug 28, 2007, 8:37:56 PM8/28/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com, Sascha Meinrath
Bob,
This would be impractical, but you might be thinking in the right direction. I'll list obstacles first, and then my thoughts:
1. Most home and business wireless routers will not transmit a signal for half a block, especially through walls, trees, and other obstacles.
2. More importantly, there is a *huge* security risk to allowing public access to your private network. I don't want my neighbors having access to my email passwords, or the files I choose to share with my room mates. Sure, there are ways to secure this, but most home and business users are *not* technologically literate.
3. In other parts of the country, people have been arrested for using free, unsecured wifi.
4. A company or household sharing their connection would be responsible for any content transmitted or downloaded using that connection...even illegal content. I'm not sure I want responsibility for one neighbor's pornography and the other neighbor's music collection; especially in this day of wanton (and expensive) RIAA lawsuits.
However:
What if we organized into ultra-local community groups that band together to provide free wireless? There is robust wireless network infrastructure already available in Pilsen and Lawndale; what would it take to light them up and connect the dots? In other neighborhoods, connectivity could be distributed between neighbors at incredibly low costs, assuming enough of them came together and organized it.
This has the potential to be much more powerful than a municipal wifi network where the city hopes to cash in on lowered costs while incurring no capital outlay. Community wireless (as opposed to municipal wireless) would involve gaming, instant messaging, shared files and storage, and even local media distribution. A powerful example of this is the project started by CuWin in Urbana Champaign, which has now spread to several countries as well as other US cities.
I would love to see some of us work to create a similar network here, complete with all the community benefits that would add real value to the system, and turn it into a "network" in the truer sense of the word. I would pay *more* for such a system than I pay for Comcast...but it would actually, ironically, cost me less.
The city's strength is that a municipal government is, by definition, an organizing body; if we can overcome the challenges to organizing something like this as a community, we would have a far more relevant, powerful solution. Cuwin is just one example of how well this can work.
The city's proposed network was weak, by comparison (despite our best efforts).
Dave.
------------------------
Dave Chakrabarti
Director of Programs
Grassroots.org
Rose Mabwa
Aug 30, 2007, 2:48:42 PM8/30/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com
Good idea, I will attempt to map the area surrounding us.
________________________________
From: cdaa...@googlegroups.com on behalf of DSS...@aol.com
Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 1:38 PM
To: cdaa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: DKall...@aol.com; cbe...@benton.org
Subject: [CDAA-Talk] Re: Chicago disconnecting from Wi-Fi vision
________________________________
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .
dss...@aol.com
Aug 30, 2007, 4:12:23 PM8/30/07
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com
Rose:
Check in with the local library. The have wifi there.
Don
Good idea, I will attempt to map the area surrounding us.
bgf
Oct 9, 2008, 1:42:27 PM10/9/08
to cdaa...@googlegroups.com
COPY
Prospective organizers and allies,
Making an issue of this could reap enormous rewards for media reform and
for our local nonprofit groups' future publicity capabilities and outreach.
- Links for background and the potential of future community
television channels as a good issue in the Chicago area have been added to
the "Broadcast These!" web site,
http://www.9898.us/broadcastthese.tv.
- A gathering of some interested community leaders to plan coordinated
community organizing around future television channels will be set for a
weekday afternoon in late October at a central location in the chicago area.
Check the web site in a few days for our announcement.
Bob Gallie, b...@aaahawk.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages