« excelsio communications, MetroNetIQ Solution Partner, Makes 2007 Resolutions | Weblog | A Tale of Three Elephants »

From Wi Fi! to Why Fi? - Storm on the Horizon?

There's a flapdoodle a-brewing out on the West Coast. Esme Vos shares her analysis on MuniWreless.com, as does Om Malik on GigaOm. Second guessers are challenging the mayor's plan for a Wireless Network in San Francisco built in partnership with Earthlink and Google.

I added a comment on Esme's analysis, which is awaiting moderation (I hope I make the cut!!!). I copied my comment at the end of this post. I'll add a couple of remarks here on my own blog, where I can feel free to run on and on (I'm not a big fan of extremely lengthy Comments, but you regular readers know I feel no such constraints here at home on my own blog).

First, Municipal Wireless Networks are by definition a Political Process. That's the "Municipal" part. Successful projects will acknowledge that and run a parallel political campaign as the wireless project progresses. Lesson for Wannabe Networkers: Make a plan and include a political campaign at the outset, identifying ALL potential stakeholders and bringing them along as you go. Stick to your guns and your timetable, don't rush things.

Second, we're still in the Learning Phase here, where a multitude of small and medium-sized projects will provide more lessons for this new industry than will a handful of mega-projects. One or two mega-failures can cause major setbacks for a new industry, when people tend to focus on the failure and draw conclusions about the entire industry. Alternately, mistakes and growing pains in smaller projects will provide similar lessons, but more of them, and if we're lucky, they may not even make the mainstream press. Lesson for Wannabe Networkers: Work with smaller cities and make liberal use of demonstration networks and pilot projects, with an intensive feedback loop. Get ready for an iterative learning process, and prepare your community for the same.

Third, the hungry appreciate food more than those already fed, so when it comes to network projects, focus less on bringing broadband from 60% penetration up to 80%, and more on taking it from 10% to 60%. Lesson for Wannabe Networkers: Go to where there is an intense, WIDELY perceived need for broadband (Hint: you won't find that in the Big Cities, where many people already have what they need with DSL and Cable). When the comparison is no connectivity or dial-up, people tend to be less critical of a municpal wireless project and its progress and just happy they have a project. As Karl Edwards points out in his recent Resolutions whitepaper posted on this site, focus on where the need is. I know why the industry is gravitating to the NFL cities - early promoters like the coverage they get, and there is a land grab underway - I just don't agree that its the best path for the industry to take at this stage. I see more and more interest being expressed in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, which I define as between 15,000 and 200,000 in population - my own arbitrary segmentation.


My recent comment.

Here here!

Esme raises some great points in her post, as does Om in his follow on commentary. And Craig is right - there's no substitute for doing things by the book.

Just as there's no way to repeal the law of gravity, there's no way a city (i.e., a "political" subdivision) can get a large or significant project through completion without building political consensus around it, and a municipal wireless network fits both of those criteria.

As a consultant, I've tried to find a path to simplicity and frankly, I don't think there are ways around some of the complexities inherent to this business. This is one case where short cuts don't pay off.

So far, mainstream awareness of the municipal wireless industry has been heavily skewed around a few highly visible projects, as Esme points out. We all watch these parties going through the inevitable growing pains of a new industry under the bright lights of media scrutiny, and it's painful to watch.

Still in its infancy, this industry is just now defining its own set of "Rules of the Road." I think we're seeing one of those rules being driven home. If I may paraphrase Craig's comments: "Go slowly, assess needs and raise awareness, build consensus, and be sure to pick the right technology, business model, and business plan to meet the short and long-term needs of the ENTIRE community." I have no doubt that the mayor and his team thought they had done just that in SF. But they are now getting feedback that they didn't do enough.

A top-down-driven project done on the QT may temporarily avoid the political hangups that would have otherwise slowed it down, but those who promote that method are only temporarily pushing off the difficult issues until later. Inevitably, those left on the outside of the decision making process will find a way to torpedo plans and slow things down - ask a maker of fine wine (that analogy should work in SF) - a quality result requires time. A wireless project does not ultimately benefit from being rushed: because these projects involve people and political issues, there's no getting around the need to forge a consensus of divergent views.

I feel for the folks involved in the San Francisco project, and all those waiting for the service, because this is a painful process to go through. But if all the project promoters outside of SF can draw this valuable lesson of early political consensus and due diligence, then the municipal wireless industry will have taken a big step towards maturity.

Posted on November 21, 2006 at 02:21 PM

Comments


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)