I’m on a committee that’s trying to decide if we should install free municipal wireless for our community. A bit of background: Bettendorf, Iowa rests five-or-so miles south of Interstate 80 on the Mississippi River.
Bettendorf’s 31,000 citizens form a largely white collar enclave among the 360,000 souls living in the Quad Cities.
Sixty four percent of our citizens have experienced college, and 63% of those over 15 are married. The median age is 39, spread like this:
- 8% are 6 and under;
- 19% are 6 to 17;
- 8% are 18 to 24;
- 17% are 25 to 34;
- 23% are 35 to 49;
- 15% are 50 to 64;
- 10% are 65 and up.
Median household income: $54,000.
In 2004, the police say we suffered 2 rapes, 9 robberies, 90 assaults, 124 burglaries, 616 thefts, and 31 stolen cars. Murders? We measure them by the decade. Just last weekend, Bettendorf cops dusted off their forensic skills for a murder-suicide crime-of-passion… the first murder of any kind since 2001.
All-in-all, if you’ve ever seen Pollyanna (the movie), Bettendorf is pretty-much the 21st century edition. A great place to raise a family.
Broadband Availability
On the Iowa side of the river, folks generally buy broadband through ISPs (lastmile = Qwest), or Mediacom. The Illinois side ultimately deals with Ameritech or Mediacom.
A few years ago, Bettendorf worked hard to find a broadband partner. We offered up our unused municipal fiber optic lines, which run through all commercial/industrial areas of town, in exchange for the broadband partner building out redundant attachment to the Internet for business.
Only one private entity showed interest. The telco, CS Technologies (CST), attached Bettendorf’s network to CST’s statewide SONET, making durable Internet communications for those businesses that choose to subscribe.
As it stands today, you can connect to the Internet, free-of-charge, at Bettendorf City Hall, Bettendorf Community Center, the Bettendorf Library, the clubhouse at Palmer Hills Golf Course, Starbucks or Borders Bookstore. All are within five minutes of anywhere in Bettendorf.
For the record: Bettendorf emergency services already enjoys its own state-of-the art secure-and-mobile municipal wireless service.
So now we have a proposal to offer free mobile wireless to all comers. The first idea goes like this: Phildadelphia’s doing it, Silicon Valley’s doing it and Chicago’s doing it. If we don’t do it, relocating companies won’t consider us. And besides, it adds to the Bettendorf mystique.
The second meme runs: Our citizens need free mobile wireless, so they may bridge the digital divide.
A quick survey of local providers offering mobile wireless turned up Cingular, Sprint and Verizon. A local ISP, Internet Revealed and a newcomer, CommSpeed, expect to have mobile systems on line in September. Another local provider, QC Online, is working with Blackhawk Community College to roll out a Quad Cities-wide mobile wireless system by summer, 2007. And finally, Scott Community College has teamed up with Solo Direct to offer a 16 mile in diameter WiMax network that will blanket the Quad Cities.
Our wireless task force is considering the following questions today:
- Should the City provide mobile wireless service, even if it’s privately offered?
- What cost savings to existing City services are possible?
- How well has wireless worked in other cities? How many users? Who?
- What are the start-up costs?
- What are the ongoing costs, both capital and operating?
- Does the City have a further responsibility to erase the digital divide?
- Is WiMax really an economic development tool?
As I prepare for this meeting, I must say, unlike Philadelphia, Bettendorf has no significant underclass that can’t easily reach the Internet. The vast majority of those who want to access the Internet have already subscribed.
How many current subscribers will cancel their existing telco/cable/cell service? Mike Langberg of Mercury News shares one community’s WiMax experience. After St. Cloud, Florida installed free municipal wireless service, he writes:
One statistic in particular should strike fear into existing Internet service providers, or ISPs, especially phone and cable companies: A staggering 84 percent of [St. Cloud muni-wireless] users, according to a recent city survey, “are either currently or plan to ultimately use the service as their only access to the Internet.”In other words, several thousand households in St. Cloud may be in the process of dropping their DSL lines or cable modems.”
A drop like that in DSL and cable subscribers could easily force datacom operators to spend their money elsewhere.
As a member of the task force that developed our City’s fiber agreement, I learned firsthand that Bettendorf is not Silicon Valley. Private companies aren’t exactly clamoring to invest in our infrastructure. If we start competing with private projects, they may simply spend their money somewhere more profitable. I would.
What’s the rush? If we wait to see what the finished private networks look like, we can always supplement where they fall short.
What would you do?
Results of Wireless Task Force Meeting #2 (25 July 2006):
A new task force member, Dr. Thomas Coley, President of Scott Community College (SCC), described how SCC has partnered with Solo. SCC traded its frequencies for a monthly stipend plus free in-school and faculty WiMax, along with big student discounts. Solo, in turn, plans to blanket the entire Quad Cities with WiMax, at its going rate. Dr. Coley says that Blackhawk College and QC Online are doing the same thing on the Illinois side, so the Quad Cities will soon enjoy two complete WiMax solutions.
Thus, it seems that students, which form a large segment of Bettendorf’s low-income group that is inclined to use the Internet are in the process of being served. A suggestion was made that we talk to Solo and QC Online to see what kinds of discounts they may offer for the few low income Bettendorf residents that remain.
As for the WiMax revolution itself… Mike Masnick at Techdirt has been following WiMax (ie, Intel) push since its inception. On 19 July 2006, he opined again on “how incredibly overhyped WiMax is.”
He points out that, despite few installations, reporters and analysts have crowned this unvetted technology a success. To make the thing seem wildly popular, Masnick says promoters have mashed up WiMax stats with truly successful DSL user numbers; thus, while millions of users are claimed… for WiMax and DSL… the millions belong to DSL.
This smells much like the strategy used by Microsoft, vis-a-vis Sender Policy Framework (SPF). As we have discussed ad nauseum, Microsoft Sender-ID protocol springboarded off pre-existing SPF installations, allowing Microsoft to trumpet its claim of hundreds of thousands of users from Day One.
In the Comments below, Rick has dropped concise input you do not want to miss if your city is considering muni-wireless.
John has great input from the social side of the equation. The trick in our town will be separating those few who need our help from those who want Bettendorf taxpayers to shell out for Internet access, so middle class-and-up freeloaders can buy another round of golf.
2049
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 25th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Scott Westerman
Hi BJ. I’d love to work with you on a WIFI soloution for Bettendorf. We’ve had some good success testing 802.11 clouds in Dubuque and Marshalltown. Give me a call or shoot me an email and we can brainstorm. Scott Westerman - Region Vice President - Mediacom Communications -
309 843-4100309-743-4100 scottwesterman@mchsi.comJuly 25th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Rick
Don’t do it! The St. Cloud myth has already been busted with many people unable to connect to the network due to low or no signal inside their homes (where people mostly use the net).
Reason 1) WI-fi is not designed for large metro scale deployment. Yes I know some are trying to make this work but it will involve a great expenditure and a lot of devices on pole tops to achieve a sub par service. The outdoor to indoor WILL NOT work in most cases without the purchase of an outdoor antenna/radio or CPE for most home owners.
2) Ongoing cost - Just because it may cost x million to install does not mean that afterwards there is little to no maintenance. Maintenance, service provisioning, customer support will run about 30% to 50% of network cost per year if the network is to be even slightly comparable to DSL or Cable
3) Incumbents will not upgrade - you certainly stated this well but I wanted to reiterate. New technology is coming quickly and wi-fi is at the end of its life cycle.
4) Spend the money on fiber. Do and RFP for a fiber build out to each home, or community. Give several providers access and let them compete on price and service. You just own the inroad.
5) Government is not equipped to handle ISP services or be a cutting edge provider of such. Stick to the basics, ISP’s service are anything but basic. You will be getting your IT staff in WAY over their heads.
6) Those networks you have cited do not exist in most cases. The only one that has yet been show to be effective is the Google in Mountainville network. Google has tons of limitless cash, I doubt your municipality does. Philly hasn’t even put up their network at all, and they were the one s who started this whole mess. Chaska is another example of a working system, however you can visit their website to speak to them about the truth behind the “smoke in mirrors” that the vendors are pushing.
7) Gotta run but please take some advice from a guy who has deployed wi-fi for the past 4 years in hotels, condo, municipal blocks etc etc and that has no stake in your decision. The usage is not there and the costs are astronomical.
Provide subsidies, tax credits, build your own access network (think roads, not cars) for other providers to use, but please do not get sucked into believing that a wi-fi network will “bridge the digital divide” or the it will make tech companies come to your town. However low cost fiber will.
Good luck and email me if you have any questions
RT
July 25th, 2006 at 9:25 am
BJ Gillette
Hi Scott.
Great to hear from you.
Here’s some news you won’t like. Our task force staff tried to reach you guys a few weeks ago and reported back that nobody even answered the phone. You might want to make contact with somebody’s fanny.
Having said that, I’m on it. BTW: You might want to check that phone number. I get “Disconnected.”
July 25th, 2006 at 9:34 am
spif
The simple solution would be to only offer free wireless to those who can demonstrate their inability to afford a commercial solution - elderly people on low fixed incomes, students, starving artists, etc. And offer computers to those who need them as well.
Don’t focus on bringing in high tech companies. Concentrate on providing your community information services online and making sure everyone can reach those services. If you partner with a company, make sure you get a long term commitment to providing free service to those who need it.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:10 am
john
Do not heed the “advice” or “warnings” from naysayers. I do believe your town has a responsibility to help its people to bridge the digital divide. A wireless solution provided by the town is a fantastic idea. The only thing you need worry about is how to implement it.
You can have a solution for your people without actually building and administering a wireless network. This is where I agree with the gentlemen above. What you can do is partner with the local ISP or cable company. Negotiate a deal whereby the town will subsidize discounts for new subscribers to internet services of their choice. This not only saves tax dollars but also takes advantage of the fact that in all likelihood it is the new subscibers that need the financial assistance to connect. The deal should also stipulate that the private company control prices as much as possible and as such the town retains the right to build its own network in the future should costs increase.
This way the town adds economic incentives and pressure on the ISPs to provide affordable quaility internet service to its citizens.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:47 am
j
Well Pakistan is having Motorola implement a nation-wide Wi-Max system.
Have you thought about that technology instead?
Also if everyone is well-off and has DSL already; why are you even concerned about this issue?
I dont know how much this will cost but if everyone can already afford highspeed…why not invest in something else…like maybe build a specialised community college, community center, start a fund to start high-tech firms, low-tech firms…
July 25th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Mick
What college do you go to john?
July 25th, 2006 at 11:15 am
john
Seems to me that a town of your size will never keep pace with the latest technology. It will always be a game of catchup. People do not MOVE to a town because it has good wireless access. People move to your town because it’s beautiful and has good caring people. We all see this is true just by the fact you are contemplating providing universal (not free) wireless access.
235dI’d like to reiterate what I said earlier. The town should set aside money for partnering with an ISP with the goal of providing internet access to 100% of town citizens who want service but do not currently have any. It seems to me it is a huge savings and time to simply give people assistance in obtaining service rather than building a network of your ow that will be outdated by the time it’s built.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Ryan
www.wirelessoakland.com
In a nutshell, local government is partnering with vendors to roll out a county wide wifi umbrella by providing access to public infrastructure, such as e911 towers, right of ways, etc.
private vendors are building out the network, and intend to recoup their investement through subscribing members that pay for access at higher transmission rates, whilst offering a low priced free (ad supported) service.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Vita
Think logically. Is there a need in Bettendorf for taxpayer-subsized wireless Internet service. Obviously not. You don’t have a lot of poor people and you do have many ISP choices in various price ranges. So where is the problem? Sounds like you have even more choices coming in the near future with the local ISPs doing residential wireless (and probably cheaper than cell phone companies are).
Some public officials push for subsidized Internet access because it’s trendy. Please. A wi-fi system is expensive to install over a large area so it can actually work, and it’s expensive to maintain. Plus you will need to continually upgrade equipment. Why would the city take on something like this for no reason? So your aldermen can brag about it at the next convention?
July 25th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Jon
Think MESH!!!
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/004766.html
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3467651
You please the users AND the telcos (who keep some connections).
Have the town subsidise some old PCs (what organisation *hasn’t* got some sitting in a cupboard?) and ADSL/cable installs at key positions, and let the rest of the town take an active part …
July 25th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Mitch
Nothing is free. When government offers “free” wireless, the true cost is simply hidden among other taxes for “public services”. With few exceptions, if it can be done by private industry, then let private industry do it. They’ll do it better, cheaper and faster than government.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
john
“They’ll do it better, cheaper and faster than government. ”
When you are dealing with monolopies which are the telcos this is definitely NOT true. This town certainly can implement a solution which is to provide affordable internet access for all. This solution need not be physically installing a public network however such a network is not impossible. The option to build what private industry refuses to do without a huge markup should be open for debate for the people of the town. All costs should be fully forecasted in a transparent manner.
Seriously, though a town network has that “cool” factor however maintenance is indeed expensive. Also legal issues could arise over content over the network. Who is responsible for the network security of a network that theoretically is owned by the town. Will the people even trust such a network that is literally in the hands of government. Do not underestimate the potential concerns from citizens over privacy and liability.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Ralph
While it’s no good to allow commercial ISPs to be the sole providers of so necessary a service as internet, today’s options aren’t exactly great. Fiber to the home is expensive, wifi is limited in speed and area coverage, and wimax is untested.
July 26th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Tim Root
Compared to other muni telco projects wireless IS cheaper and easier to get done. The solutions are cheaper and easier for consumers too. But don’t forget, you get what you pay for (as a muni and as a customer using the service). The bandwidth is low for commercial use and the quality is usually low compared to wired solutions.
As an Economic Development tool, wireless will not be a boon. Ask your business leaders, “Hey if we offered free or affordable WiFi, would you use it.” Consider the answers in this context, “Of those who said yes, are those the kinds of employers we’re trying to attract?” The bigger, primary, employers won’t use it. They will be concerned about security, reliabiltiy and performance.
Municipalities, especially the big ones, often take the easy road. Lower financial risk, less political risk, higher likelihood of getting it done. etc.
The bigger, better play is Fiber to the Premises. 100% of business owners big, small, primary employers, or not would say “YES” I would absolutely use a fiber optic connection if it was available and affordable.
Working with a provider to bring Fiber to the Premises to Bettendorf would have an enormous impact on ED there. The impact from WiFi wouldn’t even be a blip comparatively.
Tim Root
Director of Community Development
Brilliant Cities (www.brilliantcities.com)
612-230-3190
July 26th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Jim
A free municipal service is still not going to be free.
There is no such thing as the “free public” internet. All these networks are owned by someone. Even if you build your own local network (which you will own) connecting all the local businesses and homes in town, you are still giong to have to pay transit fees to one of the monopolies to get them to take your traffic to their customers and to the rest of the world (unless you are big enough to get a peering agreement which you won’t be). In turn, the monoplies will have to pay fees or have peering agreements with networks on the other end to deliver your traffic.
You have to pay, one way or the other. I would rather just pay up front, knowing what I am getting, rather than hiding it in my taxes.
July 26th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
BJ Gillette
Hi Tim.
Beautifully wrought common sense. Any studies that you can point us to would be much appreciated.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
john
Be careful to take advice from someone with an interest in wiring up municipalities.
Economic development shouldn’t be the prime reason to start a municipal service unless businesses will foot the bill and not taxpayers. This begs the question then..why have the municipality install such a network in the first place? The answer is: for the people, stupid. I see some benefit to providing taxpayers with such a network namely small business can get on the net cheaply without added cost of hardware and rewiring. Mom and Pop businesses would gain the ability to advertise online via an online community bulletin board.
Children will benefit as they will be able to be connected electronically to their schools.
Town government can be made more efficent via online postings of news, minutes, etc.
So now the question remains..you have a useful network for the people. How do you ensure everyone has a computer and the training to use such a network. It is those folks who either haven’t the financial means or knowledge of the potential benefits of the internet who should be your primary target to get online.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
BJ Gillette
Hi John.
Our committee is tasked with focusing on the value of free municipal wireless from an economic development perspective.
But after reading the socially-oriented comments, you got me thinking. Where’s the need? What portion of that need is appropriate for our city to fill? Can we do it without tapping the taxpayers?
I think the answer is Yes. Yes. Yes.
I posted the start of my framework in Free Census Bureau Data Leads to a Big Idea for Closing the Digital Divide Locally.
I’m looking forward to your input.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Jake M
If the cities partners with a local ISP I think they would go far.
I do know there is free wireless at the airport. In fact this is the only airport I know with free service. I always see laptops at the gate.