Strong Argument for Citywide Wireless Networks

The largest vendor of muni wifi equipement is going to give a balanced view? This is laughable

I looked back over that post and couldn't find where I said "balanced," but I did say that Sege made a "strong argument," which you would expect from the leading equipment maker. I've found that balanced views are pretty hard to come by, so I'll take the strong arguments over no arguments at all. Do you have a counter argument on why they're not valid?

Hi John,

A few points on the article. Quotes taken directly from source.

"parties lacking experience and facts have suggested that municipalities should not promote or fund broadband wireless networks"

Broad statement - There are many with the facts and experience who believe that using 2.4 for muni networks is not always the best pratice.

"Policies that limit the rapid deployment of broadband wireless networks mean limiting the real benefits of these networks to public safety, economic growth and the education and enrichment of our citizens."

Public saftey should certainly have wireless network connectivity, mix of 3.5 and 4.9 as these bands are set aside for public saftey. However in markets where there is a fair amount of competition for retail broadband, the city offering broadband at low or no cost could actually negativly impact the small, medium and large local broadband providers by cutting into their market share and ultimatly putting them out of business. The city is in the position of encouraging business not competing directly with service providers. I havent seen subsidised phone service or PBS avaiable at every corner yet.

"Municipal broadband wireless networks do not require digging up streets, complex RF engineering or expensive subscriber devices."

If this suggests that umwiring a city using 2.4 (one of the most crowded spectrums avaiable -thats why its license free) without doing a complex RF survey and engineering I think the writer is the one who lacks experience in wifi deployemnet or is just trying to set around the most basic rule of RF deployemnt COMPLETE SITE SURVEY and then RF ENGINEERING. Please..... and in Chaska, Mn they do sell expensive (I guess thats a relative term) subscriber devices for those 80% out of range.

"dd a comfortable margin (based on Tropos experience) for security systems, billing systems, network management systems, routers to connect to the Internet and the like and, all in, the cost of deploying a broadband wireless network in Philadelphia would be about $11 million."

More recent estimates and bids from the big three put the project at $20 to $25 million.

" Other cities have turned to broadband wireless to support public safety and other operations."

This is an excellent use of these networks and this should be the cities goal.

"Business models include public-private partnerships such as allowing service providers to use city rights of way tenant in exchange for low-cost accounts for use by city workers."

Very viable business model and doesnt cross the public private line.

"Different models are appropriate for different local goals and circumstances."

Absolutly

"With the facts in hand, let�s develop policies at the state and federal level that encourage the development of broadband wireless networks, not ones that stifle their creation."

This is where the gentleman attempts to lump city use broadband networks into the same boat as those that offer service to the public sector at a tax payer subsidised rate or free. This will stifle competition in the short and long run becuase no private entity is going to compete and invest in providing broadband to the private sector when the city has already taken a large market share and uses up the entire 2.4 and a majority of the 5Ghz spectrum. In addition if cities deploy 2.4 using 1 watt radios anyone in radio distance with a private wi-fi network will suffer imense interference.

"The winners will be the citizens, no matter who deploys a broadband wireless network--municipality or service provider."

If there is no provider or planned proivider of wireless broadband then a city providing the service may be a win for the citizens. If the project is sucessful, has a good business plan, reaches a good majority of its citizens and is low cost.

In the service provider case, I have seen RFP's done by cities in areas where there are local wireless providers and cities have requested networks covering the entire city and offering service to residents for free. (Ie Orlando, Miami Beach) This is not a win for citizens. Local wireless companies will get put out of business of interfere with the city network to a point where service will be unusable. And how can you compete with free. In the end the citizen will have a poorly run, low bandwidth (sorry but 1 meg symetrical AGGREGATE is barely broadband, poor tech support network. Competition is what creates choice and improves service. Todate we are not a Socialist society and there is a reason the free market system exists in America. To revert to city run services that stifle competition IN AREAS THAT HAVE EXISTING cometition is one great step in the wrong direction for our race to provide affordable broadband to all. Sorry thats all the time I have. Have a great day