Earthlink Threatens to Pull the Plug on Philadelphia -- Tries to Strong Arm City

[Michael Weinberg]

According to this article, Earthlink is threatening to dismantle their
Philadelphia network if the city doesn't buy them out by tomorrow:

http://philly.metro.us/metro/local/article/Citywide_WiFi_could_be_shut_down/12422.html

Even though it is reportedly 80% built-out, they seem to feel it is
worth more as scrap than as an on-going revenue generator. Of course,
this may just be a bluff. Earthlink probably hopes that their threat
will get the city to buy them out in order to avoid being blamed for
the network's failure.

Which all reminds me of MetroFi's threats to stop building the
Portland network unless the city agreed to an anchor tenancy contract.

I can think of no better argument for a community built and supported
network than the low-life tactics that some of the Municipal Wireless
Providers are now employing to try to escape their own misjudgments
and naive business models. A network built by and for the community
should cost less and provide better service, over the long term, than
one built to hit quarterly profit goals and satisfy investors.

What next? "Buy our network or the kitten gets it!"

http://static.flickr.com/29/59880012_913f5a7524_o.jpg

--
Michael Weinberg
President
Personal Telco Project, Inc.

[Aaron Baer]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Michael Weinberg <mic...@personaltelco.net> wrote:

What next? "Buy our network or the kitten gets it!"

http://static.flickr.com/29/59880012_913f5a7524_o.jpg

--
Michael Weinberg
President
Personal Telco Project, Inc.

poor sweet little kitty cat!

i can haz flack jackIT?

A-

--
----
Aaron Baer
aa...@slyness.org
http://aaron.slyness.org/

[Michael Weinberg]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Michael Weinberg
<mic...@personaltelco.net> wrote:

> According to this article, Earthlink is threatening to dismantle their
> Philadelphia network if the city doesn't buy them out by tomorrow:
>
> http://philly.metro.us/metro/local/article/Citywide_WiFi_could_be_shut_down/12422.html
>
> Even though it is reportedly 80% built-out, they seem to feel it is
> worth more as scrap than as an on-going revenue generator. Of course,
> this may just be a bluff. Earthlink probably hopes that their threat
> will get the city to buy them out in order to avoid being blamed for
> the network's failure.

As many of your probably have seen, Earthlink announced that it would
dismantle the network beginning in June. They claim to have offered it
for free to the city or an unnamed non-profit, but presumably the
costs associated with running the network and potentially some
outstanding liabilities left the city and non-profit disinclined to
accept that offer.

It will be interesting to see if MetroFi choose to make such an offer,
should they decide to shut down. As I understand it, they have posted
a bond to cover equipment removal, so dismantling the network is in
effect already paid for. Given the limited coverage area and onerous
MSN spyware as the only revenue stream, it's hard to imagine either
the city or another entity seeing much value in taking over the
network as it stands.

[Greg Moore]

Another great reason for PTP to exist! The MetroFi system is at best, a poor system. Many folks have confused PTP with MetroFi. After explaining the difference and showing the two systems side by side (yes, I've done this), the overwhelming response is that folks much prefer PTP access points.

Putting Wifi in the hands of shareholders is a bad idea.

Three cheers for PTP!

Greg

--
Greg Moore
gr...@maxathome.com

[Sam Churchill]

I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is profitable.

Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full screen
splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant revenue.

Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days,
that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a
penny, that's $30K/month.

It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing network
-- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.

So who's the likely buyer? I'd put money on Microsoft.

- Sam
---------

>> As many of your probably have seen, Earthlink announced that it would
>> dismantle the network beginning in June. They claim to have offered it
>> for free to the city or an unnamed non-profit, but presumably the
>> costs associated with running the network and potentially some
>> outstanding liabilities left the city and non-profit disinclined to
>> accept that offer.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if MetroFi choose to make such an offer,
>> should they decide to shut down. As I understand it, they have posted
>> a bond to cover equipment removal, so dismantling the network is in
>> effect already paid for. Given the limited coverage area and onerous
>> MSN spyware as the only revenue stream, it's hard to imagine either
>> the city or another entity seeing much value in taking over the
>> network as it stands.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> gr...@maxathome.com
> >
>

--
Sam Churchill
(www.dailywireless.org)

[Alan]

>
> I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is
> profitable.
>
> Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full screen
> splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant revenue.
>
> Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days,
> that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a
> penny, that's $30K/month.
>
> It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing network
> -- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.
>
> So who's the likely buyer? I'd put money on Microsoft.

I have a real hard time believing those numbers. Have you ever been able
to connect to Metro-Fi's network? Do you know anyone who uses it
regularly?

I have never gotten a clean and clear connection to their network. I can
see their network, I just can't get a working connection.

I think the numbers are cooked so some sucker will come along and buy them.

[Michael Weinberg]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Sam Churchill <schur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is profitable.
>
> Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full screen
> splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant revenue.
>
> Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days,
> that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a
> penny, that's $30K/month.

These numbers seem believable, though I'm not very familiar with
online ad-revenue, I'll go with that.

> It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing network

$30K/month is only $360K/year. MetroFi had initially speculated a
buildout cost of $10M, though I believe I read somewhere that they had
only spend $2M on Portland, so far. If you remove any on-going costs,
it would take five and a half years to make up that initial $2M
investment. Also, based on the contract with the city, at the end of 5
years, MetroFi needs to begin paying the city for the space they are
leasing on traffic signals and the like, which likely represents
10-20% of the revenue you've calculated.

> -- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.

I would guess that the introduction of the 3G iPhone will result in
most users abandoning MetroFi's unpredictable and ad-encumbered
network.

[Sam Churchill]

Metrofi is my sole connection. I disconnected my dsl line six months
ago. I depend on it 100 % for all dailywireless.org research and story
posting. If it goes down, I go down.

Is it reliable? No. Is it frustrating? Yes. The bottom line is it's
good enough for me not to give up on it. And it's free.

I wouldn't normally use it as my sole provider, but it forces my to
use it and monitor the system in my downtown location (one block from
the train station downtown).

I have no idea what Metrofi's real performance numbers are. I'm just
saying they have alot of advertising.

The real issue is The Deal with any intended buyer. It should include
a public service component that delivers free or discount service to
those that need it and don't have it.

I think wifi is too expensive - at more than $100K a mile - to provide
suburban service. That's why I'm partial to WiMAX for the outskirts.
Free with ads, $9.95 for up to 1 Mbps.

- Sam
---------------

--
Sam Churchill
(www.dailywireless.org)

[Michael Weinberg]

I'm certainly not going to debate your experience, Sam, and I think
your insight, as a regular user of their service is invaluable, if
anecdotal. Allow me, though, to present the problem I see with your
(and many others') logic concerning the iPhone.

The main advantage of an ad-supported network, from a user
perspective, is that the service is free. You also accept potentially
spotty uptime and temperamental speeds, precisely because you are not
paying.

Use of the iPhone is predicated on the user purchasing unlimited
Internet access from AT&T. Virtually every iPhone user is going to
have immediate access to approximately 500k/200k of always-on Internet
access. Does MetroFi reliably provide higher speeds than this for you?
My (again, anecdotal) experience is much worse than that. MetroFi
certainly can't match the coverage that AT&T provides its iPhone
customers. I just can't see any value in having the phone connect to
MetroFi rather than using the already-paid-for service through AT&T.

You might make that argument for the iPod Touch, but I don't believe
that those are anywhere near as prevalent as the iPhone.

Michael

--

[Tyler Booth]

I think wifi is too expensive - at more than $100K a mile - to provide
suburban service. That's why I'm partial to WiMAX for the outskirts.
Free with ads, $9.95 for up to 1 Mbps.

WiMAX is NOT the magic bullet. It costs millions to deploy, you need to own spectrum, and at the end of the day, it's coverage isn't any better than wifi minus some given level of interference. WiFi can be deployed for much less than 100k per sq mile if you're not providing mobile access. On top of that, the Clearwire/Sprint/Comcast conglomerate will never provide free access (ad driven or not) and currently charge WAY more than $10 for 1Mb.

Quit drinking the intel kool-aide

Tyler Booth // President
ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002
921 SW Washington St, Suite 224
Portland OR 97205

[Tyler van Houwelingen]

This is an interesting discussion, so I thought I would add my opinions....

 

My firm has extensively deployed both muni WiFi and now WiMax @ 3.65GHz (to replace the muni WiFi networks).  IMHO, WiMax is very much the real deal, and you can believe the hype.   Using just 2 WiMax APs we get the same coverage that currently takes about 125 WiFi APs and with much (3X) higher client speeds, lower maintenance, better QoS, and up to 20X the number of users per AP, etc.   Also, you dont have to deal with the municipality, rights of way, bank switched power, interference, rouge APs, security issues, etc.

 

I believe that Muni WiFi is pretty much dead.  I am not saying it cant work, I am just saying that economically it is not viable right now.   $100k per sq mile is being optimistic, the best networks (like the Tropos network in Miami beach) have 50 APs per square mile to get blanket laptop coverage.   That translates to about $160k/sq mile, plus very high OPEX for electricity, maintenance, etc.   With WiMax, you can do mobile laptop coverage at 1-2 or fewer per square mile depending on the band.   WiMax only costs us about 5X more per AP versus WiFi (e.g. tropos), so you do the math on the per sq mile, but the difference is an order of magnitude.  

 

I believe that Muni WiFi is a 5G architecture (picocell) that was attempted many years to early and with the wrong wireless technology.  This is not to say that good ideas like PTP and Meraki wont be successfull, they will be.  But mobile WiMax is a very important and powerful technology for operators and I hope to see this deployed worldwide as soon as possible.   A WiMax iPhone that works everywhere will be truly awesome.  Yes WiMax is not free or under $10/month, but it can be a very good deal.  You can see our wimax pricing on our website, the lowest prices we offer are $29/mo with no contract for 2Mbps and $49 for 6M.   Not as good as free, but certainly not bad.

 

tyler

 

-------

 

Tyler van Houwelingen
Founder & CEO
Azulstar, Inc.
1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
Main:  1-877-AZULSTAR
Fax:  616-842-1104
www.azulstar.com

[Tyler Booth]

Unfortunately, for us lucky enough to live in the NorthWest, we're in an exclusion zone which means there is about 0.0001% probability of being able to utilize 3.65Ghz. 2.3ghz and 2.5ghz are all owned by the big guys, which means we're stuck with 5.4-5.8ghz "WiMAX-ish" gear.

I don't think WiMAX is a bad technology, rather, I think what it is trying to accomplish is great and it has it's place in the market. However, to fully utilize it to it's full potential, you need a frequency that propagates well. Somewhere between 1.5ghz and 3.8ghz is really the sweet spot for this. If you're lucky enough to be outside of an exclusion zone 3.65ghz is going to have interference issues sooner or later, enjoy the open spectrum while it lasts.

Lastly, despite years of development, a standards body, and the billions of dollars that Intel has thrown at this, there is still no inter-vendor compatibility. Which means it would be absolutely useless to put WiMAX in a laptop, iphone, etc because it would only work with one vendor on one frequency.

My point here is that everything that WiMAX claims to be, it is not. But given cooperation with the FCC, regional WISPS (I'm not talking about Clearwire here) and a handful of vendors, it could be something great.

For now, a well planned WiFi system can still be done for much less than $100k/sq mile, while offering the end user speeds that can compete with DSL and Cable (3-6Mbit). Mobile WiFi of course is a totally different story.

Tyler Booth // President
ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002
921 SW Washington St, Suite 224
Portland OR 97205