How much will the wi-fi cloud cost Portland?
Turns out the answer is: Not much.
According to the Oregonian:
A close look at the city's contract with MetroFi Inc., which goes before the Portland City Council on Wednesday, suggests that the risks of the deal belong primarily to the company. The contract doesn't require the city to help finance the $10 million network, for example, or to spend any money on wireless services. ...By finding a private company to build the network instead of using taxpayer funds, the city said it expects to minimize its exposure if the ambitious project falls apart.
In fact, the city's obligation to MetroFi comes largely from expenses that it's already spending with other vendors and services - though there's no guarantee built in to the contract:
Portland also plans to subscribe to the network for far-flung city offices and, if technical issues can be worked out, to cut the cost of collecting credit card data from its automated parking meters. MetroFi's contract sets a $9 monthly fee to serve each meter, for example, compared to at least $15 a month that Portland now pays. ...Chuck Haas, the company's chief executive, said he is confident Portland will want to use his company's service once it's available, even though the contract has no guarantee.
When's it going to happen?
If the City Council approves the company's contract this week, MetroFi plans to begin building a "proof of concept network" next month in Portland's central eastside to demonstrate the technology works.The contract calls for network construction to continue over 24 months, eventually spanning 95 percent of the city. Up to 2,500 wireless antennas on light poles, streetlights and similar perches would gather Web traffic and ferry it to and from the Internet.
Read the rest. Discuss.
July 18, 2006
Posted in in the news 2006. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:51 p.m.
Jul 18, '06
Whatever you do, don't tell a certain law school professor that it won't become a hideous boondoggle for the City!
2:57 p.m.
Jul 18, '06
Whatever you do, don't tell a certain law school professor that it won't become a hideous boondoggle for the City!
You mean like he's already taken a single line from the article and presented it entirely out of context and from the wrong angle?
3:05 p.m.
Jul 18, '06
yes, just like that. sigh.
Jul 18, '06
Remember this is brought to you by same guys who said the tram would only cost $8M. I have no idea why you think they have any credibility with financial matters.
Jul 18, '06
When I read about Portland accepting public bids for WiFi access, I thought it was a wonderful idea. Several other communities around the USA have taken the same step with cities such as San Francisco working with industry leader Google to provide reliable and flexible service to their cities.
Under the Google plan, this WiFi service is provided free to users without advertisement support cluttering their screen.
I was, however, quite confused and disturbed to see that Portland decided not to accept the bid of industry leaders opting instead to go with a no-name provider with an average track record offering to provide service that is cluttered with an onscreen toolbar feeding advertisements onto the user's browser.
Funny how that a city as progressive and high tech as Portland would opt for the less professional and ad driven service rather than the better provider.
Someone needs to be investigating what local politician's bank account is being enriched by MetroFi Inc. to award them this contract.
10:48 p.m.
Jul 18, '06
Steve said:
"Remember this is brought to you by same guys who said the tram would only cost $8M. I have no idea why you think they have any credibility with financial matters."
I nominate this for most brainless criticism of the year. (I suppose I'm being insanely optimistic in choosing the year rather than the decade.) Actually, UnWire Portland is brought to you by an entirely different set of people from those involved with the tram except for the fact that the city council has to OK it. Perhaps you've noticed the city has done and continues to do a few other things in addition to the tram? Or is that more insane optimism on my part?
Chuck said:
"Under the Google plan, this WiFi service is provided free to users without advertisement support cluttering their screen."
I believe that if you do some research you will find that in SF Earthlink will be charging subscribers for 1Mb Wi-Fi and Google will be providing free but ad-supported access at 300Kb in conjunction with that.
The Metro-Fi proposal in Portland is for 1Mb ad-supported free access or a subscription to get 1Mb without ads. In either case free access is ad-supported but Metro-Fi is proposing a 3x faster connection.
Incidentally, Google didn't bid in Portland.
Having served on behalf of the community as a member of the Unwire Portland selection committee, I can tell you that its members all exhibited the utmost professionalism and were entirely focused on doing the best thing possible for the city and citizens of Portland.
11:20 p.m.
Jul 18, '06
Steve: Are you saying the commissioners should have been aware the price of steel would skyrocket? It's gone up 65% this year, and I believe that follows doubling in price since 2003. If I understand right (and somebody correct me if necessary), this accounts for the lion's share of the increase in the cost of the tram.
Chuck: Your post doesn't portray the process very accurately. I don't believe Google ever entered a bid; Earthlink was the only company that could be described as an "industry leader" selected as a finalist. They didn't have a plan for ANY free access...ad-subsidized or not. Best overview of the selection process that I've found is at OregonLive.
b!x and tj: care to share with the rest of the class?
11:27 p.m.
Jul 18, '06
Let's see. In three years MetroFi will be in Chapter 11, and the City of Portland will "condemn" its system for eight figures and start to operate it under the ever-growing banner "Portland Utilities." It will never work.
11:34 p.m.
Jul 18, '06
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 18, 2006 3:05:05 PM
Alias Mark Bunster of freakin' Lake Grove. No doubt on company time, City of Portland Fire Bureau.
11:59 p.m.
Jul 18, '06
Jack Bog--
You have your own blog-- please take those kinds of comments back over there.
I like this idea. If it's reasonable enough, I'll likely be one of those who will subscribe to the paid version. I don't live in Portland (I'm in Gresham and already have 6Mb high speed internet at home), but I do work in Portland and I attend a heck of a lot of meetings in the city as well. It'll be nice to be able to have access to the 'net at all times and not be tied to whether or not the building has internet.
It never fails that something comes up and people just assume that those of us with laptops in the room must have the ability to go pull it off the net.
You should've seen all of us on election night trying to get election results at various parties across the city. It was a nightmare.
12:15 a.m.
Jul 19, '06
All this wireless stuff is great, but has anybody from Portland ever looked into what they've done in Glasgow, Kentucky? They've been offering broadband Internet to private citizens since the mid '90s. It costs a whopping $26/month. This backwater town would never have been a priority for the Qwests or Comcasts of the world, so they took care of getting online themselves.
Best of all, they offer a wealth of information on how it was pulled off, in a political sense, on their web site. The "Overview" and "FAQ" links are especially informative.
12:16 a.m.
Jul 19, '06
please take those kinds of comments back over there.
I was attacked here, not there. Sory to interrupt the seance of the enlightened.
12:24 a.m.
Jul 19, '06
The full list of companies that bid on Portland's Unwire project:
Earthlink, MetroFi, MobilePro, U.S. Internet, VeriLAN, Winfield Wireless
12:27 a.m.
Jul 19, '06
The fundamental issue of risk with respect to UnWire Portland isn't Metro-Fi vs. Earthlink.
Earthlink is big and has lots of money but as yet they have no hands-on experience with large wireless networks whereas Metro-Fi is smaller and has less money but they do have significant real world wireless experience.
The moral of that story is that you can't be on the cutting edge of a technological revolution without assuming some risk. If you want to avoid all risk, you need to wait a few years while these companies and other cities do the experimenting to find out what works and what doesn't.
It's certainly possible to make a legitimate argument in favor of waiting. Of course, being last to catch onto a technological revolution is also not without risk.
Jul 19, '06
City-provided wi-fi is filled with so many uncertainties. What are the promised service levels, and what how is the city going to insure that those service levels are met?
It's my understanding that the company that got the bid is promising 1MB for all users of the free system. Either they're smoking crack or they're going to be losing money purcasing access mighty fast.
I'm also guessing that this company is planning on paying for this system via the ubiquitous click advertising. The problem is this: If the company's business model fails and they don't meet their advertising/revenue requirements, what happens to maintenance and operation of the system if the company fails? Is the city prepared to take over the costs of running such an operation in the event of a company failure?
Downtown, inner west side and inner east side have plenty of high rises, large office buildings, and other physical barriers. Wi-fi doesn't go through building infrastructure so well. What kind of expectations are the company and the city providing to people?
I'm not sure if this "free" wi-fi is being targeted to lower income folks. If so, how many lower income folks can afford notebooks or wireless modems for their desktop machines? Or are free notebooks the next item on the "free" list?
Regarding installing antennae on telephone, electric poles, etc. I would hate to be the one from this company negotiating with PGE, Pacificorp, et al for access to their infrastructure. Good luck, that's all I'll say. My guess is that the public utilities would want some $$ per month for the privilege of having the antennae on their infrastructure, even if they allowed it.
And then we get to the question of whether or not it is actually appropriate for a government entity to provide a free service that is currently being provided by any number of private companies.
Free, yes, for the user, but at what cost to the community and to local jobs? Just for numbers sake, lets assume a base population for PDX at 500,000 folks. Lets say a mere 5%, or 25,000 residents choose the city-provided "free wi-fi" instead of a private provider.
At a conservative $25 per month for 1MB speeds (actually you can't get reliable 1MB for under $40/mo, but I'll use $25 for the illustration), thats $625,000 in lost revenue from private companies, or $7.5 million dollars in lost revenue per year. That would translate to lost local jobs on a worst case basis, and no local job growth in this sector on a best case basis.
Nebulous service levels, overconfident promises of 1MB per user, questionable business and infrastructure model for the private supplier of the "free" service", questionable access for lower income folks, formidable physical barriers to signal quality, not to mention high probability of local job losses, make city-provided wi-fi a no-go.
Jul 19, '06
As nice as it would be to have such a system, it would be nicer to see the actual revenue projections and cost figures this startup is projecting to determine if MetroFi actually has a viable business model. I haven't seen in the press that Google expects their S.F. wifi system to be a viable business in it's own right for some time. Most reporting suggests that in keeping with Google's current initiatives to expand their core business and for now they will subsidize that project from their considerable cash reserves.
Obviously this is not the case with this startup whose business model is providing top-end wifi subsidized by ads. So far I haven't found the actual costs and revenues they are projecting. It's fair to say that $9mil in total investment capital against $10mil in build-out costs in PDX alone, with no contractual commitment by the city to buy wireless services and the typical Web 2.0 mumblings about selling ads, is not the business plan that sold the investors these days.
doretta -
Do you think there may be a reason Google apparently declined to bid here?
Chuck Paugh -
I don't believe you necessarily need to look for corrupt politicians (well maybe just one or two). It may just be that folks from Silicon Valley sold a deal to the provincial rubes here and in a few other cities that wouldn't have flown elsewhere without corrupting some politicians.
12:47 a.m.
Jul 19, '06
Jack--
I'm sorry, disagreeing with your views on issues and posting personal information on someone are two completely different things. That's why I stopped coming over to your blog-- because stuff like that is uncalled for. It sounds like Minnis whining when we attack her stances on the issues-- we're attacking her, we're getting personal, etc.
Back onto the issue...
If it were $26/month, I definitely wouldn't do it. It might be great for those who live in the city and also use the service as their home service. But for those of us already paying for service at home, it's not a good price.
I do hope that if the cost in Portland ends up being similar that there is some kind of service for those of us who would be using the service a heck of a lot less than those who live in the covered areas. I already have wi-fi at work-- I just would like it those 15-20 hours or so per month when I'm at a meeting without wi-fi or would like to be able to work while out to eat.
I pay less than twice that now for my home service, and I'm getting speeds twice what they're offering-- plus I'm using it 300+ hours per month.
1:16 a.m.
Jul 19, '06
I'm not sure if this "free" wi-fi is being targeted to lower income folks. If so, how many lower income folks can afford notebooks or wireless modems for their desktop machines? Or are free notebooks the next item on the "free" list?
See FreeGeek.org
Robert, in general yours are good questions. Are you suggesting that no one at either the city or Metro-Fi ever considered any of them? Or are you asking everyone to start the public conversation over at the beginning so that you can catch up?
1:53 a.m.
Jul 19, '06
A wireless card for your computer often costs less than 2-3 months worth of dial-up access (regular price is often $30-35, with sales, instant rebates, and mail in rebates making them even less). Having been low-income for much of the past 4 years, I can assure you I would have jumped at the chance to have this service. Spending the money up front for the wireless card would have been a lot better than spending the $10+/month for dial-up access.
Yes, there are free internet providers out there, but from much experience I can tell you that in much of this area they are worthless. We were never able to connect. We ended up getting service that was $9.95/month, but it was terribly slow and the little web consulting work I did during that time took my twice as long as it would have on a faster connection.
Not to mention the fact that while I was online, our phone was in use. That meant either missing important calls or paying for a service that would let us know who was calling while we were on the web.
Having the faster connection (which would only cost me the wireless card) would have meant my web expenses going to almost nothing and the amount of time spent administering web sites would have decreased. And that's important, since it means more time with my daughter.
Jul 19, '06
Kari Chisolm: I've been in the telecom/IT business for over 25 years. I've followed this city provided pie in the sky free wi-fi stuff for years.
I doubt if certain cities even cared about the answers to the questions. My guess is that Metro-Fi is using other people's money for this venture, as is their privilege. And the city is playing with the taxpayer's money while at the same time jeopardizing existing local jobs. What's free about that?
It's the cities that stray away from their core services that need to do the reality check. It's the same thing it always is: overpromise blue sky, underdeliver reality.
By the way, your condescension needs a little work.
Jul 19, '06
Steve: Are you saying the commissioners should have been aware the price of steel would skyrocket? It's gone up 65% this year, and I believe that follows doubling in price since 2003.
OK, I could see going from $8M to $16M becuase of that, but how do you explain $8M to $55M+ in price increase besides either incompetency or fraud in the inducement?
I nominate this for most brainless criticism of the year. (I suppose I'm being insanely optimistic in choosing the year rather than the decade.)
When the city says it will cost almost nothing, I am not worried about the nothing part, I am worried about the almost. Erik et al have no competnence in running a business efficiently, how would they know what makes a good WiFi set up?
Jul 19, '06
Steve -
You put your finger on the right operative word almost. For the benefit of those who really don't have much of a clue about the real world economics of these things, I think we can get a glimpse of how this might play out:
With only $9mil in Series A three months ago, three running projects which almost certainly must have a negative cash flow, and three projects to build out (with Portland alone estimated to be $10mil) they are depending on cities like Portland to cut back their own data telecommunications spending and instead become dependent on them. If that happens, and it willl be difficult for the Council to resist with current promises of no-cash deals trading access to public structures for placing Wi-Fi for services, once the hook is in they'll be in front of the Commission saying they need funding to keep running. There will be no turning back at that point.
It's privatization Web 2.0 style, and it should be the folks who think business should take over all government functions who actually support this. The MetroFi guys are smart enough to know that selling plans like this they need to have a different sales pitch in places like Portland. The thing people should be agitating about is getting the PDC to disclose whatever they should have found out in due diligence about the these guys' balance sheet. But "insanely optimistic" doretta and the majority of the loopy Portland left always seem to know something we don't: These things just magically run on moonbeams and good will of the guys with the plan.
There is are a couple of additional risks here: WiMax distribution is not yet a proven, standardized technology. So in some sense Portland is also a testbed and the specific technology deployed here may become obsolete quickly. One could easily imagine these guys in front of the Commission seeking funds for a private-public partnership to replace their original equipment. Which will just happen to be more expensive to meet the "unexpected" actual demand that the original equipment just wasn't capable of satisfying. They will also tend to crowd out small businesses who offer free Wi-Fi as part of their friendly neighbor business model to increase customer volume and loyalty. Now that's right in keeping with Portland's "we different here" self-delusional view of itself isn't it "insanely optimistic" doretta?
This could be a good deal, but no one can honestly argue that it is without those hard numbers. And unfortunately Jenni, as much as I would hope it could deliver on the promise of delivering data at a reasonable price to folks like you, I'm skeptical they can build out enough bandwidth to provide sufficient free bandwidth to deliver on that promise. Those who can pay will get priority access to bandwidth, and those who don't will be left with whatever spare packets are available after the paying customers get theirs.
10:19 a.m.
Jul 19, '06
Robert said: It's the cities that stray away from their core services that need to do the reality check. It's the same thing it always is: overpromise blue sky, underdeliver reality.
Internet access IS a core service, almost no different at this point in history than electricity--and becoming less different with each day. The city has a large and growing internet infrastructure, and the delivery of services from the city via the internet means that there is a responsibility to ensure full access to those services. Part of the deal is the provision of access to government and school buildings I believe, which currently operate under a patchwork of connections. Until just recently, there were several fire stations on dialup, trying to push tens of MBs of medical data to central computers at crazy-low speeds.
Sorry to have brought on the Bogian interruption. I don't consider mentioning the fact that someone's predictions are wrong to be a personal attack, but it was more snark than substance to have said so. It IS a personal attack to try to intimidate via notions of "exposing" the name behind an internet pseudonym, but someone doesn't seem to get that you can only expose a person once. Since the Oregonian did it on a pretty broad basis last week, I'm not sure what the point of this latest attempt was. It certainly didn't make for an effective rebuttal on wi-fi. Let's get cloudy!
4:25 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
askq's: That's the first time I've heard anything about WiMax relating to the Unwire Portland project. Got anything to point to? I've always thought this is an 802.11 project. (If it wasn't, what would Winfield Wireless have brought to the table?)
Also, you're misusing (or obfuscating) the term "Web 2.0</a?". If I could understand what you mean, I'm pretty sure I'd disagree. You characterize their desire to use advertising as a revenue stream as "mumbling." Huh? If you've seen their business plan, maybe you can explain. Of course it's possible they have a bad plan, but why do you dismiss it without citing any solid reasons?
Your criticisms of doretta are lacking substance. Certainly the "loopy Portland left expecting things to work on moonbeams" is an irritating phenomenon, but nothing doretta has said here place her in that category.
The one specific point you bring against her is a red herring. As far as I know, San Francisco is the only city Google has shown any interest in, as far as wireless goes. But SF is unique in several respects: it's a major city, it's extremely dense with some contour (ideal for wifi), it has a high-tech and wealthy population. And it's right in their back yard.
Why do you interpret their entry into SF wifi as a desire to roll it out in multiple cities?
4:27 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
Sorry for the unclosed link.
4:34 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
Wow, my unclosed link really mangled that.
On Web 2.0: if I could understand what you're talking about, I'm pretty sure I'd disagree. Why do you characterize MetroFi's plan to use advertising as a revenue stream as "mumbling?" Sure, we've all seen failed ad models on the net. But there are successful ones too. Do you know something the rest of us don't? If so, could you share?
4:40 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
About Glasgow, KY: I know it's a little off-topic, but it's really worth a look.
I'm not proposing this as an alternative to wireless internet, but this town looks to have developed a very successful model for essentially offering inexpensive broadband as, more or less, a standard utility. I believe the local power company actually saved significant expenses with this project.
Moreover, they make it clear that they're eager to share their recipe for success with other cities.
I think the people on this thread should take a closer look.
Jul 19, '06
Pete Forsyth -
I am going to assume you are asking questions in earnestness (although your comments about doretta suggest that is being a bit generous). I'll respond in two posts because the WiMax matter involves a bit of unapacking. I should not have assumed folks here have knowledge of data networks.
My comment about WiMax actually involves several levels of information. Note first that I didn't say that MetroFi was deploying WiMax, from the public press it is unclear whether WiMax technology is actually involved (more on that later). On the surface level what I was saying is that the eventual form any of these municipality level wireless systems will take is the ideal that emerging WiMax technology is trying to approximate (the Platonic ideal of WiMax if you will). We don't know for sure what that will look like but it's all but a certainty it won't look like what MetroFi will deploy in the next year. And therefore Portland's system will all but be obsolete before it is turned on just from that standpoint alone.
Dropping to the actual technology level, "Wi-Fi" only refers to the technology used for the megabit wireless link between the network access points and your AppleTel machine. Those megabit access points must be interconnected by a gigabit backhaul network, which in this case must also be wireless or the whole project would be a joke. You can find out more about MetroFi's backhaul network here for instance:
http://telephonyonline.com/mag/telecom_wimax_makes_mesh/index1.html
About half way down you'll see a discussion of the 2G SkyPilot's SkyExtender mesh backhaul technology used by MetroFi and talk about the 3G WiMax based backhaul technology SkyPilot will be starting to test at about the time MetroFi would start their Portland build-out. Anyway you slice it, PDX will not be getting mature area-wide broadband technology, and likely will need to start upgrade planning, and spending, before they even light up the system.
None of the advocates or press seems to have presented this kind of real information to the public needed to make a wise contracting decision. One wonders if they had the savvy to understand the economic ramifications?
Jul 19, '06
Pete Forsyth -
Responses to the rest of your comments:
Also, you're misusing (or obfuscating) the term "Web 2.0"
Only in the narrowest technical sense, but not in the way anyone who has been in the startup game uses the term. The stalest joke about Web 2.0, which implicitly depends on "broadband for all" to leverage the collective "wisdom" of the mob - hence Unwired Portland, is the answer every would-be next Google gives potential backers when asked about business models and cash-flow: "We're going have advertising".
With regard to Google: Your comments are my best defense. If anyone knows how to make money in the ad-supported, city-wide, free wi-fi game it's Google. And they ain't interested in anywhere except the one place they can possibly run at relatively minimal loss, which isn't PDX. As I said, before anyone can even hope to sound like anything less than a total moron about MetroFi's chances, they need to put out MetroFi's current balance sheet and cash-flow projections for the next three projects they have announced. And they really ought to also throw in the dog-and-pony show MetroFi must be taking around right now to potential Series B VCs because the $10Mil to build out PDX alone is not going to leave much from the only working cash we know about for sure (the $9Mil they raised 3 months ago.)
Now to your dumb defense of doretta. As a representative of the community on the team, she could have laid out the real financials on this project for the benefit of the community. As I said, that includes as a minimum the due diligence on MetroFi with regard to their current balance sheet and cash flow projections.
Instead she snidely, in that falsely polite PDX way, gives us these three gems that apparently are all she believes need to be said about the project. The first is to Steve, who legitimately challenged the competence of the agency with mission level management responsibility for the project:
I nominate this for most brainless criticism of the year. (I suppose I'm being insanely optimistic in choosing the year rather than the decade.)
The second belies total ignorance, at least with the facts known to us, about the actual cost of the technology MetroFi proposes relative to the real revenue even possibly available to support it without public subsidy:
The Metro-Fi proposal in Portland is for 1Mb ad-supported free access or a subscription to get 1Mb without ads. In either case free access is ad-supported but Metro-Fi is proposing a 3x faster connection.
And finally this testimonial about the "genuinely good souls" of the team deciding which marketing PR to buy into:
Having served on behalf of the community as a member of the Unwire Portland selection committee, I can tell you that its members all exhibited the utmost professionalism and were entirely focused on doing the best thing possible for the city and citizens of Portland.
Taken together I just don't see much real-world grounding, certainly not enough to justify her tone towards critics.
What may be a surprise to you is that I'd really like to see a system like this work for the benefit of working people. I'd just like to see a business model that is real rather than another slick startup possibly spinning tails and a few key people involved n the business making $$$ out of all proportion to the productivity they actually deliver back to the society. And so far we just don't have any real business facts proving their case. I suspect they are considered "trade secrets" which the PDC/PDX will agree to allow MetroFi to keep away from public view. Making the finances of the operation concrete and transparent is what responsible, intelligent community representatives should have been focused on for the good of the community and the project.
Jul 19, '06
"Internet access IS a core service"
Exactly, would you trust local government with a core service? Look how well they have done with schools, jails, potholes and water rates.
9:35 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
Yes, I would. Public schools are earning mainstream educational community respect recently for providing a generally equal experience as private schools in this country. Jails are MUCH better run by the government. I suggest you read of the travails of the Wackenhut company, particularly with respect to their abysmal records in Texas and Oklamona--not to mention their profit-based influence on government to pony up more money for incarceration, while bringing more dangerous felons in state if your prisons aren't full enough. The most rickety, scary road I've driven on in recent memory (before it was purchased by a quasigovernmental transpo agency and totally redone) was the private toll road across the James River off Boulevard Avenue in Richmond, Virginia. The public highway system in Virgina, on the other hand, is one of the best. We don't have potholes in Oregon because of government, we have them because Oregonians don't want to pay for it or any number of other things we want but can't surmise our taxes are supposed to pay for. And Portland has some of the best water in the country for insanely, ridiculously cheap rates. (The bills that are outrageous are the sewer bills; blame the EPA and the vindictiveness of the Bush administration for that one.)
My rule is that any operation where transparency and accountability are paramount, is best left for government to manage. Life, death and children, basically--schools, public health (ie basic utilities , police, fire, health care), transportation infrastructure, prisons and the military.
Jul 19, '06
Not to mention sidewalks, sewers, minor league ballparks, 911 answer times, probation monitoring and the agency formerly known as CSD. Or the multitude of petty crimes (like car theft and drug possession) that no longer merit any jail time. All of these "core functions" are much more important than "free" wi-fi service. Maybe we should delete "minor league ballparks"...My mistake.
On the bright side: we do have plenty of sister cities. And light rail to every developer's doorstep.
9:59 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
And the postal service. I'm always impressed that you can still spend just 39 cents and someone will pick up a piece of paper from your home and ensure that it arrive 3000 miles away, exactly where you want it, and in only 2-3 days.
10:32 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
"With regard to Google: Your comments are my best defense. If anyone knows how to make money in the ad-supported, city-wide, free wi-fi game it's Google. And they ain't interested in anywhere except the one place they can possibly run at relatively minimal loss, which isn't PDX."
On the contrary, Google has made it pretty clear that the SF thing is a pilot for them. They were looking for a place to test their ad-supported model and it's no surprise that they picked their own back yard to do it. The fact that they are doing it at all means they think an ad-supported model might be viable.
"As a representative of the community on the team, she could have laid out the real financials on this project for the benefit of the community. As I said, that includes as a minimum the due diligence on MetroFi with regard to their current balance sheet and cash flow projections."
Metro-Fi (and all the other companies who submitted proposals) were required to supply that information to the city and the committee but that was all done under non-disclosure. I am not legally allowed to relay that information for any of the companies involved.
"Instead she snidely, in that falsely polite PDX way, gives us these three gems that apparently are all she believes need to be said about the project."
Ar, ar, ar, ar. (Think Robin Williams laughing like a seal.) Falsely polite? Perhaps you should look up the word "polite" in the dictionary. If the dictionary is less than 20 years old you might also look up the word "flame". Some of you are so used to spewing all over public officials who can't really respond at the level you deserve that you've come to think of immunity to that as your fundamental right.
I'm not a public official, just a private citizen. I'm free to give criticisms the respect I think they deserve. Thoughtful criticism, in my opinion, deserves thoughtful response and in the face of thoughtful criticism I endeavor to supply that. Ignorance, unsupported assumptions, and (above all) bad attitudes deserve, and may well get from me, a different response.
That you took my short response to a couple of local bully boys as "apparently all she believes need be said about the project" would provide an excellent example of an unsupported assumption except that you knew it was simply a lie when you wrote it given that I had written another completely different post about the project some 18 hours previous to your doing so.
"...who legitimately challenged the competence of the agency with mission level management responsibility for the project"
Considering what screw-ups human beings are, I think we should just assume that any project involving human beings is doomed to failure and stop trying to do anything at all. Steve's post wasn't a "legitimate challenge", it was a Portland right-wing talking point.
"The second belies total ignorance, at least with the facts known to us, about the actual cost of the technology MetroFi proposes relative to the real revenue even possibly available to support it without public subsidy:"
Yes, we've already established that there are facts known to me that you aren't privy to, however, to say that the set of facts known to you constitutes total ignorance is too harsh. (Hint: don't assume that sentence was an attempt at politeness on my part.)
"genuinely good souls"
Its quite tacky of you to put that in quotes as though it has some relationship to anything I said. I can read a balance sheet and am generally capable of spotting things that don't compute on the gross level we are addressing here, but I don't pretend to be a finance expert. There were several people who would qualify as finance experts on the committee, however, including one of the other citizen volunteers who has an extensive background in tech startups and venture financing.
"And so far we just don't have any real business facts proving their case. I suspect they are considered "trade secrets" which the PDC/PDX will agree to allow MetroFi to keep away from public view."
Just so. As every company who would consider being involved in this project would require. You want Metro-Fi to bare their soul in public for the privilege of spending $10M of their money? I want world peace but I understand that wanting it isn't going to make it happen.
Jul 19, '06
While all this is going on The Personal Telco Project is going strong after 6 years of unwiring Portland on donations, support form home/biz owners and community involvement.
Lets just hope Metrofi is nice enough not to squash what they and other free wifi efforts have done for this city.
www.personaltelco.net
-tomhiggins
10:42 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
Lets just hope Metrofi is nice enough not to squash what they and other free wifi efforts have done for this city.
cough
10:45 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
I wonder where the hell Oklamona is....? But their prisons suck.
Jul 19, '06
Lets just hope Metrofi is nice enough not to squash what they and other free wifi efforts have done for this city.
cough
Nicely put b!x. As I remember it you were one of the few non PTP people who tried to bring this issue up. Much thanks. I hope time will show that MetroFi is a good nieghbor rather than a bulldozer that flattens the public spaces of Portland (spectrum wise) that many of our citizens not only use but share in its creation and upkeep.
-tomhiggins
10:55 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
Other than people choosing or not choosing to use and/or donate the PTP sites, how could Metro-Fi's system hurt PTP?
11:07 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
"Erik et al have no competnence in running a business efficiently, how would they know what makes a good WiFi set up?"
"Erik et al" don't pretend to know what makes a good Wi-Fi setup. Like any good business executive would do, they delegated to people who do have that expertise. They:
In short, they did what any business would do that was contemplating entering into such a business relationship with another company.
Jul 19, '06
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 19, 2006 10:55:47 PM
Other than people choosing or not choosing to use and/or donate the PTP sites, how could Metro-Fi's system hurt PTP?
Analogies for this are hard but I will give it a shot. Before the penut gallery picks me apart let me point out I will not mention tubes at all..
Think of it this way. We are in a room talking, we can hear each other from a couple of feet away. Now in comes 500 other people all TALKING REALLY LOUDLY. All of a sudden we need to be butting heads to hear each other. Maybe we get good at lip reading, maybe we go and find another place to talk.
The problem with wifi is there are only 3 real places to talk (channles). So we may fund another place to talk but then thats gets crowded with MORE LOUD TALKERS..
For Metrofi to do what it proposing it is going to need to be in all three of those places and be talking REALLY LOUDLY. So wifi soutions currently in place are going to have to start SHOUTING EVEN LOUDER or thier range of service will shrink.
TO add to this the FCC sets a limit on how LOUD YOU CAN TALK. So if Metrofi shouts up to the FCC limit the PTP and other wifi installs currently set up will diminish.
Lets hope this does not become a shouting match.
Of course there are little clauses like this in the Wifi System Agreement docuent that give me pause....
"8.30 Non-interference. The Parties acknowledge and agree that in order to maximize performance and reliability of the System as well as to minimize any interference for private parties, the City will encourage citizens and businesses to limit use in bands and access channels not employed by Licensee in a particular area."
Encourage us not to use the three bands in the wifi slice of the spectrum over 95% of the city that Metrofi is going to cover...that would be a bad thing if that is what is proposed.
Anyway, I hope this helps some.
Sorry for the typos
-tomhiggins
11:33 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
Other than people choosing or not choosing to use and/or donate the PTP sites, how could Metro-Fi's system hurt PTP?
Well, the first part of the answer ot this is my cough link. The second part is what tom just showed me from the Nonexclusive License Agreement (pdf):
So first, MetroFi's business model depends upon them getting their ads in front of as many people as possible, which means building out their free access as much as possible. And second, people running non-MetroFi wifi nodes will be "encouraged" to limit their activity to bands/channels not being claimed by MetroFi, which sounds a lot like trying to give MetroFi priority access to whatever bands/channels they say they need.
11:43 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
When the city created the RFP I don't think they had any expectation that anyone would propose a reasonable speed ad-supported connection with no subscription fee.
I see two potential issues around Personal Telco Project and we should not confuse or conflate them.
The first is the question of what will happen if Metro-Fi's ad-supported WiFi is so well accepted by a majority of users that those users will cease to find added value in PTP-created hotspots. My personal opinion is that if that happens all the PTP folk should heartily congratulate themselves and accept hearty congratulations from the rest of us for creating a climate where that could happen and move on to some other related and/or interesting intersection of geekiness and public participation.
The second issue arises if the user community deems both Metro-Fi's network and PTP's hotspots to be of value and make coexistence a serious issue.
The committee was well aware of that potential problem and addressed it specifically. Metro-Fi expressed a credible intention of being a good neighbor. The proof is in the pudding but I'm reasonably optimistic.
NodeID: 23229 SSID: Personal Telco - N: Doretta Schrock Internet Access: Yes Commercial: No
Contact Name: Doretta Schrock
Node Status: fullap Description: Suburb: North Portland State/Province: Oregon Country: US Postcode: 97217
Jul 19, '06
Am I missing something, or are people suggesting that it's a bad thing for Portland to have free Internet access built out as much as possible?
Are we saying "our" highways would be much nicer if only "our kind" of people could afford to drive?
Jul 19, '06
So first, MetroFi's business model depends upon them getting their ads in front of as many people as possible, which means building out their free access as much as possible. And second, people running non-MetroFi wifi nodes will be "encouraged" to limit their activity to bands/channels not being claimed by MetroFi, which sounds a lot like trying to give MetroFi priority access to whatever bands/channels they say they need.
Ok solets step outside the haze of mid 90's bubble nostalgia and take a look at this whole Free With Ads biz model.
Remember Netzero? Yea they also gave free net serivce if you accepted parts of your screens realestate to be slathered with ads....and they are now????
Yes, not a free service becuase when the clickthru bubble went POP they had to charge folks for usage.
Now I am about to speak the unspeakable here but i think it needs speaking...typing rather..and say the words now one has said yet that wil undo the entre FreeBecauseYouAreLookinAtAds thing....
Greakmonkey scripts.
Thats right folks odds are a few lines of code in an web browser extenstion is going to be able to BLOCK THE ADS...just like folks are doing all over the world to turn their surfing time back into something more than being bombarded by banner adds, whack the mole flash games, FREE IPOD popups and the seemingly perpetual reminder that "Your classmates are looking for you"
Did you ever think maybe Im not looking for them? Hmmm? Never corssed your minds Mr Ad Agency genius.
Now granted I have not had a chance to look at who metrofi will inject ads into browser all over Portland, but given the methods I know of the GreasMonkey may have the last word on what Ads I see.
-tomhiggins
11:47 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
Meanwhile, MetroFi's acceptable use policy includes this:
So on a citywide "municipal" network in essence being instituted for the benefit of the public, the public must abridge its own First Amendment rights in order to make use of it.
Depending on who is judging the "offensive" or "indecent", I wouldn't be allowed to post to FURIOUS nads! simply because of its name.
11:49 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
"Before the penut gallery picks me apart let me point out I will not mention tubes at all.."
Snort. Good one.
11:53 p.m.
Jul 19, '06
Oh, and just in case someone says "all ISPs have that" I should say that, for example, mine does not. Nowhere in its TOS do the words "offensive", "indecent", or "hateful" appear. And "pornography" apppears only in the context of prohibiting child pornography.
Jul 19, '06
I see two potential issues around Personal Telco Project and we should not confuse or conflate them.
You are missing an important third issue which trumps the other two, that of community use of a public space.
Its not just about the PTP, its about any coffe shop, biz, group of nieghbors and user base that uses wifi. Any and all of them will feel the pain if,k and this is still and if, MetroFi turns up the volume on their gear to max in order to cover the city with their serivce.
The FCC has rules on this, which is what 8.30 mentioned above give me pause.
Are we saying "our" highways would be much nicer if only "our kind" of people could afford to drive?
What does this mean? Im curious.
-tomhiggins
Jul 20, '06
tom, that meant that I have a queasy feeling about the number of posts above (not b!X in particular, although I snagged some of his vocabulary) that imply that the fact that free highspeed WiFi might attract people who are not currently using bandwidth is a drawback of the whole plan.
Admittedly, I do sometimes reminisce fondly about the friendly little online community we lost when all these GUIs and the World Wide Web attracted the hordes of folks who like pictures and commerce and suchlike. But I don't pretend we should go back to the Usenet days.
And I don't like it when newbies who arrived in the past couple decades want to slam the door on the next generation.
12:06 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Continuing the inadvertant tag teaming here, I need to weigh in on the same thing tom just responded to.
Am I missing something, or are people suggesting that it's a bad thing for Portland to have free Internet access built out as much as possible?
Are we saying "our" highways would be much nicer if only "our kind" of people could afford to drive?
Erm, no. And certainly no supporter of PTP would be claiming that "it's a bad thing for Portland to have free Internet access built out as much as possible".
What's being argued is that there's a suggestion -- when you piece together MetroFi's business model with the potential in the license agreement of granting them, in essence, the "right of way" before any other wifi nodes in town -- that existing networks, or other future individual or grassroots networks, will be shunted aside in favor of MetroFi's ad-based free Internet access.
If you had a choice between a Portland whose wifi had a million nodes blooming from many different people and groups (including Metro-Fi's ad-based offering), or a Portland whose wifi is dominated by MetroFi's ad-based access, which would you prefer?
To turn your question around: Are you saying that the only solution to providing Internet access to underserved communities is by treating them as wallets with eyeballs?
12:12 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
"You are missing an important third issue which trumps the other two, that of community use of a public space."
No, I'm including that in my second one.
A central example the committee discussed was the Pioneer Square issue involving PTP and another provider that arose a few years back.
I've set up wireless hotspots for public use in North Portland both as PTP nodes and not and I seem to recall that another committee member has done so too so that wasn't merely an academic question in our minds.
Jul 20, '06
tom, that meant that I have a queasy feeling about the number of posts above (not b!X in particular, although I snagged some of his vocabulary) that imply that the fact that free highspeed WiFi might attract people who are not currently using bandwidth is a drawback of the whole plan.
If Metrofi's "free" access drowned out the community driven sources of access would you think that was drawback.
The PTP has always been about getting more and more and more and more (and more) people EMPOWERED by using the network and being part of the network's growth. We dont just ask them to sit back and enjoy the ride, we also encourage them to participate and to help spread the good news that access for all is not just a dream, its a very real and obtainable goal. We hold classes on the use and potentials of not just wifi but networks in general. We help folks get connected and to help others get connected. We work with local home owners and biz owners to grow the area of accessability. We work with nieghborhoods to build solutions to offer the folks living there access and empowerment. We cost the tax payers nothing, we work only on donations and the good will of the community.
Metrofi offering that?
Im not saying MetroFi is a bad solution to the desires of the city planners, what Im saying is that if that solution drowns out other soltuions it would indeed be a bad thing.
I hope that MetroFi spreads over Porland all the goodness it can and does the lest harm to others looking to do the same.
In short CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
-tom(yes im from the east coast)higgins
Jul 20, '06
doretta -
Read carefully now: Google is rolling out in one city because they don't know yet if and how they can make money with metro-area Wi-Fi. Not because they know how to make a profit on it and just don't want the extra positive cash flow as they play around with aiming the antennas exactly just so that they would experience if they rolled out in 6 cities like the folks at MetroFi.
As my post indicated, I'm also quite familiar with the scam whereby private companies doing business with the public's government now get "representatives of the community" (more on parentheticals below) and government officials to sign NDAs agreeing to withhold important info like this from your fellow citizens. Not too many years ago it was against the law in many states and in the Federal government to withhold information now commonly covered by NDAs from the public. This is fairly recent trend is just part of the continuing increase of corporate privilege over the legitimate interests of the public. You sold out your community by even agreeing to sign such an NDA. Shame on you. If you had any integrity, you would have worked to get the committee to refuse to sign such NDAs and put the financials out to the public.
In particular, with regard to your intellectually dishonest statement: You want Metro-Fi to bare their soul in public for the privilege of spending $10M of their money? First, this is not the total actual cost of the project. The project includes some kind of agreement with MetroFi for long-term, monopolistic access to public facilities for citing their infrastructure. That alone changes the nature of the deal to one in which the city could be giving them something of significant value relative to their contribution. Because of your failure to act responsibly on behalf of the community, the public now does not have the information needed to put a fair value on all components of the deal.
Furthermore, as a publicly traded company, most of the info about Google needed to assess their expected cash flow for the S.F. project is accessible to the public. There is little MetroFi would be exposing that would actually damage a legitimate business model Of course the real goal of the NDA could possibly be to prevent the public from finding out how they are putting one over on the rubes in PDX is part of their business model. Since you are sworn to secrecy, it could just be you're covering up a scam. See how your attempt to trump the argument by claiming "I know something you don't know" works both ways, and how your misguided decision to participate in this assault on the public's right to know actually has done a real disservice to your community?
And finally, not all parenthetical statements are presented as quotes or summaries of your words. Before you start throwing around aspersions like Its quite tacky of you to put that in quotes as though it has some relationship to anything I said. pick up a copy of Perrit and Ebbit's "Writer's Guide and Index to English" or Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" and learn something. The parenthetical was appropriately and accurately used to characterize the substance of your testimonial with regard to the context it was offered.
1:01 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Bix --
You said that your "cough" link makes part of the case that Metro-Fi is going to hurt PTP. But I don't see it.
Basically, you're saying that because MetroFi is going to be free, that that's going to somehow hurt PTP's free service. Right? I don't get it. Why can't two groups give away a free service?
And the second part of your argument - that the agreement somehow is going to cause the city to force non-MetroFi wi-fi nodes to shut down... well, that looks like boilerplate to me. The reality is that multiple wi-fi nodes can operate simultaneously without hurting each other. The wi-fi at the coffee shop across the street from me doesn't impact my home wi-fi. Heck, driving down the middle of North Mississippi, I once picked up 10 separate wi-fi connections.
That language just looks to me like Metro-Fi covering their ass, and making sure that if there's some massive microwave transmitter (or something) blocking their access that the city is going to help them do something about it.
Then again, I'm speaking mostly as an uninformed citizen here.
1:09 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
"What's being argued is that there's a suggestion -- when you piece together MetroFi's business model with the potential in the license agreement of granting them, in essence, the "right of way" before any other wifi nodes in town -- that existing networks, or other future individual or grassroots networks, will be shunted aside in favor of MetroFi's ad-based free Internet access."
I'm not an expert on unlicensed spectrum so someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that even if you are the City of Portland what you can do to forcibly limit anyone else's use of unlicensed spectrum is extremely limited to nonexistent.
Tom's scenario of Metro-Fi behaving as a bandwidth hog through sheer mass is a more likely serious concern than the "right-of-way" thing.
Peaceful coexistence in the use of that limited resource potentially requires that good neighborliness that tom mentioned on everyone's part. I'm hopeful that Metro-Fi understands that the 800-pound-gorilla routine will not go over well in Portland.
"If you had a choice between a Portland whose wifi had a million nodes blooming from many different people and groups (including Metro-Fi's ad-based offering), or a Portland whose wifi is dominated by MetroFi's ad-based access, which would you prefer?"
There's that world peace thing again. Let's do a little math and be realistic about our choices. PTP has been around for 6 years, what proportion of the city currently has publicly accessible WiFi based on their efforts to date? How many active PTP nodes are there? For the sake of argument let's say there are 500 PTP nodes and another 500 publicly accessible nodes installed outside their auspices. And let's say the first half of PTP's existence was learning curve and credit the whole 1000 nodes to the last three years. At that rate Portland would have a million nodes in a mere 3000 years.
I'm not denigrating the PTP efforts--I think what they have done is great and UnWire Portland is only one of many things that would not have happened without them.
"To turn your question around: Are you saying that the only solution to providing Internet access to underserved communities is by treating them as wallets with eyeballs?"
Well, it wasn't my question and there is seldom such a thing as "the only solution", but yes, I will say that if the goal is to get real functional access to the Internet to large numbers of people in underserved communities then in my opinion Metro-Fi's the only proposal available with a credible chance of fulfilling that goal.
1:13 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Basically, you're saying that because MetroFi is going to be free, that that's going to somehow hurt PTP's free service. Right? I don't get it. Why can't two groups give away a free service?
They can. But the issue under contention here is whether or not the fact that MetroFi's business model requires them to put their ads in front of as many people as possible means that said business model has a built-in incentive to push out competing methods of free wifi access, and whether or not the non-interference "right of way" clause in practice will create problems for those competitors.
Not saying it's a lock. I'm just continuing to say and ask, as I've all along, what no one else covering the story ever seemed to bother themselves to say or ask.
The reason why I made a specific point of coughing people to that post of mine was because of the faulty logic in it. What it specifically points out is that the City's contention that "Personal Telco will be only minimally affected, the provision of comparable free service is not a major expectation of the RFP" never made any sense in terms of their selection of MetroFi because MetroFi's bsiness model requires them to offer free service supported by ads -- the ads being how they claim to support themselves.
No one in the press ever pursued that inherently illogical claim by the City, and it ("it" being the question of posing problems for PTP and others) seems a rather central concern. But when everyone just accepts an illogical claim by the City as the answer without actually looking at it, I would think there's a right to be skeptical about how this is going to play out.
Jul 20, '06
A central example the committee discussed was the Pioneer Square issue involving PTP and another provider that arose a few years back.
Ok so in that light, how does clause 8.30 work into cases like the one mentioned above?
I've set up wireless hotspots for public use in North Portland both as PTP nodes and not and I seem to recall that another committee member has done so too so that wasn't merely an academic question in our minds.
Yes, I know a couple of the folks on that committee and the good works done in the name of spreading community accesability to the net and mucho thanks. Watching the whole process play out was eyeopening, there was evidently some on the committee with certian concerns. It was also good to have some of the members come talk to the PTP at one of our monthly meetings. I have come to appreciate the open nature of much of the poltical machinations in Portland.
One of the big issues I remember being shown as to why this plan would be a boon to the City was the parking meter issues. In the documents today I read there is some "techincal" issues that need working out. Does this mean the parking meter aspect of the plan might not even be put into play?
-tomhiggins
1:22 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Forgot the other part.
The reality is that multiple wi-fi nodes can operate simultaneously without hurting each other. The wi-fi at the coffee shop across the street from me doesn't impact my home wi-fi. Heck, driving down the middle of North Mississippi, I once picked up 10 separate wi-fi connections.
First, that you can pick up 10 doesn't at all mean that none of those 10 are causing interference with one another if you sit down and actually try to use them. The wifi being there and the wifi being usable and clear are two different things.
So extend that fact to a MetroFi network where "in order to maximize performance and reliability of the System" other people will be "encouraged" to "limit use in bands and access channels not employed by Licensee". If MetroFi says it needs certain bands/channels to operate properly in a given area, and their use of those bands/channels interferes with other existing wifi nodes, at the very least the License Agreement pretty much requires that the City and all its authority sides with MetroFi.
As I said, I don't think it's a done deal that there's going to be a problem. But the pieces are in place for a problem to be possible, and no one who counts seems to care.
Jul 20, '06
Ok before I lay me down to sleep I think there are a few Techincal Realities that need to be adressed here.
Wifi Space Is Limited - TRUE - If one person decides to they can fill the entire spread of Wifi Space such that no one else can use it. Its the same reason why you get bleed through on AM/FM stations while driving around the state.
Everyone Can Use Wifi Space and All CoExist - MAYBE - True ONLY if Everyone decides to act nice and work with each other to not drown each other out. False if a well funded entity decided to simply crank up the signal and flood away, then the recourse is to go to the FCC, which is why clause 8.30 is perplexing me and no one is giving up a straight answer. The FCC will simply say that as long as everyone is not going over thier set limit its up to the parties to work it out. Yes the PTP got Tmobile/Starbucks to back off in Pio^2 thanks to a great David V Golliath PR push. Now with things like 8.30 in play how is the deck stacked? Enquiring minds wants to know.
Ad Revenues Will Keep Things Free - MAYBE - a big fat maybe with things like Netzero pointing to a historic NO. Yes Google and Yahoo make bank on it, but so far as I can see MetroFi does not have the eyeball count or click thru rates to overcome easy Greasmonkey like work arounds and finicky market vectors who will be paying for the ads. What happens if MetroFi has to pull its free service in order to make up for nonexistent/low ad revenues?
As we all known at the PTP, someone pays for the service. With the PTP its home owners and biz owners who foot the bill for the free wifi they offer up. Who is footing the bill for MetroFi's Free Wifi if the Ad Revenue model falls down and goes boom?
Lets also not forget that right here in Portland there is a company doing a Free wifi service..Verilan. Anyone every try to use the free service they are offering? Hows that working out for ya? Yeah, thought so.
The PTP has 500 nodes - FALSE - You must have been listening to a certian english accented fella with a knack for PR?:)- The reality is the PTP does not know exactly how many nodes are running as PTP nodes. Many nodes are run by folks who do not report in and go merrily on thier way offering free wifi with the essid of www.personaltelco.net. Now we do know how many nodes we manage as a group..well someone knows...I think. I used to know but thats becuase I was doing stats and such at the time. It has grown.,the Mississippi Project and the hard work of some New Blood (some one has to fill in for the BurnOuts) has increased the number of nodes we have installed and maintained as a group.
The Big Idea of the PTP was never to be a group that builds and controls a massive cloud of wifi over all of Portland...though many of us are guilty of going to sleep with that dream/nightmare in our heads...but rather a be a group that empowers folks to do it localaly (blocks, hoods) and have those small clouds form up and make a storm of access over the city. Distributed Efforts fostered by Education and Community Support.
At that rate Portland would have a million nodes in a mere 3000 years.
And then Wimax will finally be ready for public use and we would not have to worry about spectrum crowding on the unlicensed spaces...Oh wait..and then I woke up, Wimax being the vapor marketing wonks sniff to get that late 90's bubble high. But thats a whole other issue for another time and place.
Hope this helps clear some points up.
-tomhiggins
2:10 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
"The project includes some kind of agreement with MetroFi for long-term, monopolistic access to public facilities for citing their infrastructure."
Indeed it does not. The agreement with Metro-Fi is for five years and is nonexclusive. The city is free to make additional agreements and make public facilities available to other companies or entities as it chooses. That information is publicly available.
It seems somehow inappropriate for a person who chooses to argue from assumptions rather than information to be lecturing anyone else on integrity.
"Google is rolling out in one city because they don't know yet if and how they can make money with metro-area Wi-Fi. Not because they know how to make a profit on it and just don't want the extra positive cash flow as they play around with aiming the antennas exactly just so that they would experience if they rolled out in 6 cities like the folks at MetroFi."
You have a habit of misrepresenting someone else's opinion and then ridiculing your misrepresentation--had you noticed that? There's an integrity issue somewhere in there, wouldn't you say? I said Google has made it clear that they are running a pilot project in SF to test their ad-supported model. Most people would find the implication clear that if they are testing their model its because they are not sure it will work. As I said, if they are testing it, it is probably safe to conclude they think it might work. I think it is foolish to conclude anything beyond that from what Google has done so far.
Yes, Metro-Fi is ahead of Google in their deployment of municipal WiFi networks. They've had municipal networks operating long enough to satisfy themselves and their backers that they have a model that will work. If/when Google gets to that point they will presumably expand their efforts similarly.
Metro-Fi may be wrong to be satisfied. Everyone acknowledges that. No model of large-scale municipal WiFi is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt because none exists.
Jul 20, '06
As a volunteer and board member of PTP, my only concern with regard to the MetroFi network is whether it will interfere with existing PTP networks.
There are reasons that individuals will prefer PTP networks over MetroFi's, which I won't and probably needn't enumerate here. Personally, I have doubts about the sustainability of MetroFi's business model and so I am not inclined to assume they will last. In that context, there is no reason PTP should packup and go home. MetroFi will be an interesting experiment that we might all have an opportunity to learn from.
As for bridging the digital divide, PTP has some experience in that area. What I have observed on the Mississippi Grant Project is that wireless networks don't seem terribly effective at providing access to the networkless. Free wireless networks tend to be cool things that affluent people with apple laptops utilize. There are solutions to the problem for the motivated non-affluent, e.g.: freegeek and an antenna in the window. Another solution that doesn't require wireless at all is the public library.
One thing that MetroFi will never be, even if it succeeds as a business, and that is your network. It will belong to and be operated in the interests of its investors. That is, I think, an important difference in PTP's favor, and a sufficient reason for PTP's continued existance.
One last observation. Portland is already blanketed in wifi. Check out WiGLE's web maps of Portland. And realize, for the most part, the areas shown without apparent wireless networks are likely the result of no one checking recently, rather than actual lack of coverage. All it would take to Unwire Portland Tomorrow is people deciding to affirmatively share the networks that already exist. That is what PTP is helping people do. That is what PTP will continue to do.
2:35 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
"Ok so in that light, how does clause 8.30 work into cases like the one mentioned above?"
As I recall the committee addressed that issue directly with Chuck Haas. His response was that his bottom line is that he wants to know that if there is a problem the city is willing to be on the hook to help find a solution.
We are all looking at it from the perspective of a community entity being interfered with by Metro-Fi but Metro-Fi also has to consider the problem from the other direction. They have committed to provide a particular level of service to 95% of the city. We think of them as the 800 pound gorilla but the reality is that when it comes to interference issues they are more like 800 pounds worth of white cheeked gibbons and if most all of those monkeys aren't swinging freely on their vines they don't meet their targets. (Ok, I'm going to stop with that analogy now while I still can.)
Jul 20, '06
As I recall the committee addressed that issue directly with Chuck Haas. His response was that his bottom line is that he wants to know that if there is a problem the city is willing to be on the hook to help find a solution.
Did the comittee recall that there are FCC laws which cover those issues? It sounds nice to say the city is "on the hook" to help find a solution but the section reads as if a solution is already determined...that the city shall "encourage" folks off the bands MetoFi is using...the bands that are set up by the FCC to be unlicesned bands and thus not ones companies can have municiple agents "encourage" local citizens and bizness off of..
I appreciate the postion you were in when working up these issues, but on this issue there is very little wiggle room. 8.30 sets out a remedy for a problem and that remedy only includes moving folks out of the way of the 800 lb horde of white gibbons in spite of Federal regulations that say resolution of such issues is of a different nature.
This does not speak well to the inclusion of the publics use of its space.
-tomhiggins
3:23 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Correction: apparently once they have sited their equipment on a particular spot they are entitled to keep it there for ten years.
3:43 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Again, only time and experience will tell for sure but I think your reading of that provision to mean that the city has agreed to ignore Federal regulations is not likely to be the correct one. I would not say that section provides a remedy, just an agreement to make an effort. I think the reason it reads "encourage" is because they know full well they can't really do anything about it if people don't choose to feel encouraged.
Jul 20, '06
Again, only time and experience will tell for sure but I think your reading of that provision to mean that the city has agreed to ignore Federal regulations is not likely to be the correct one.
Thats about as hedgy a statement as I have heard in a while:)- Your not saying yes, your not saying no, but still the clause is in a legal docuement...hmmm
I think the reason it reads "encourage" is because they know full well they can't really do anything about it if people don't choose to feel encouraged.
So why put in a worthless unenforcable clause? Why state in a legal document the first response of the city will be to side with MteroFi in any disagreement of using those bands?
Its as if your saying..."Yes MetroFi we will "ENCOURAGE" (wink wink) our citizens off of the slice of spectrum they are allowed to use freely and with out license becuase we want this deal to work. Yeah we know there are FCC "laws" (wink wink) but we like you are willing to overlook that....(turns head to citizens)..we dont reallly mean this, we respect your rights of use but we have to look good here..(turn head back to Metrofi)...What? No we were not talking to anyone......"
Wether this clause has to be used or not, its not something that inspires my confidence as a citizen.
-tomhiggins
Jul 20, '06
I'm going to chime in here..
I am opposed to this for a number of reasons. let's go through them one by one.
Water billing computer- Nuff said
Anti-business: The city of porkland has been steadily growing more ant-business over the last few years, it "claims" to want business to come to PDX, but they have shown otherwise with their high cost of doing business in Portland(taxes, license fees, continually messing with what little parking we have). There are already WiSPs here in town, the city of Portland is effectively telling them to leave!
I am the former owner of a cafe in downtown Portland. One huge advantage I had over my competitors(besides the best coffee, and grilled cheese in town) was that I was a hot spot. If you have city sponsored(lets be real, it will is city sponsored) Now you are going to take that away from the owners of the cafe that are barely getting by, and only have a slim advantage over there competitors.
Interference: Umm there are only 3 clear channels in 802.11b/g they (metro-fi) will be stomping all over every channel(11 here in the US) clear or not. While this is not illegal, it is immoral. People already have longterm contracts with their ISP, Wireless may be part of that existing contract. you have just told them to take a flying leap.
Security:
Well believe it or not, some operating systems are not secure, when you have some unlucky schmuck with an open share with sensitive data on the machine... lets see how fast somebody gets sued(hey providence, I'm talking to places like you)
Lack of over site by the very people who built the original free networks: We (the real wireless geeks) were not consulted on this matter. Nigel did not represent PTP at all it was in his own best interest(I'm not faulting him btw, he just and a dog in the fight) Most of these people where hand-picked due to their complete lack of knowledge of the tech and why it would not actually work.
Cost: The REAL cost:
ok my math isn't what it used to be, but 15m to unwire Corpus-Christie(less than half the size of PDX) and 10m to do Portland? wow, I know gear has gotten cheaper, but the math I did, comes out to over 10m for JUST THE LABOR OF INSTALLING the hardware. Netzero, Juno, and a few others have tried to do advertising based “free” services. last time I checked, Netzero was charging 9.95, which is a far cry from free.
Hey Mr. Mayor. You got sold a bill of goods with out seeing the package. Buzz words do not make a city better. Hire someone who will not just pay lip service and actually knows what works and how to save money.
and lastly as an expert at WiFi, I can say with no uncertainty that WiFi still sucks
Jul 20, '06
b!x -
Since this has taken a technical direction, you and Tom are correct that there is a limit on the number of independent wi-fi access points that can operate in any area. Shannon's rate-distortion theory tells us what this means in practical effect: The more independent carriers you have operating, which in this case translates to total data being transmitted, the lower the possible data rate on each one. And users of other system could experience data rate degradations more than one might expect at first blush (if they could connect to their preferred WiFi access point at all) since MetroFi needs to have as much data traffic going over it's system as possible. That will decrease the available data capacity available to other operators in the same physical space. Power levels are only a minor issue here having more to do with the imperfections of RF front ends than anything else because we are talking about digital coding on an analog carrier, not analog transmission like AM or FM radio.
Why do you think MetroFi's gigabit backhaul has to operate on a different frequency?
So yes, if MetroFi is to become a successful WiFi provider it will have to crowd out free Wi-Fi: Both in an mind-share/economic sense, and in a technical sense. Generating ad revenues requires eyeballs and eyeballs looking at webpages delivered over a different wi-fi channel are lost revenue. And degraded data rates because too many carriers at the same frequency are operating in the same physical space tends to cause boomers and young folks in the ADHD generation alike to quickly lose interest.
tomhiggins -
Thus your concerns are right on point: The practical effect of the economics of MetroFi's model and the physics of RF data transmission are that in fact MetroFi will tend to insist that others do not site competing Wi-Fi systems, or perhaps even operate, in the same physical locations. And we can reasonably predict that if the City is using their system, it will not want to degrade the "free" data rates it is receiving and so will make a public necessity argument to justify keeping others from siting on those facilities, that's a city contracting issue that b!x has already in effect spoken to, and use whatever legal muscle it can to cause others to go dark. That's a matter of FCC regs and in this era of unbridled corporate/government power over the rights of individuals, the City won't have much of a problem there. (Is your favorite mom-and-pop shop providing free wi-fi ready to make a $1mil Federal case just to keep their wi-fi operating?) doretta's understanding of FCC regs concerning unlicensed spectrum are about on a par with her apparently limited understanding of the economics and physics of Wi-Fi and RF.
russellsenior -
You make the quite important point about the loss of community richness and diversity this deal brings, and actually how the folks on the commmittee failed their community by signing the NDA. MetroFi is in this for the chance to make a profit first and foremost, despite what the true believers like doretta say as they downplay the real world drawbacks of the MetroFi plan here. MetroFi has a fiduciary obligation to their owners to do whatever they have to make a profit if they can, regardless of the negative social and economic consequences to anybody else. Only those who know how much of a pipedream MetroFi's model really is (we have an idea though it's a relatively big fantasy) can know how destructive they potentially are. The head in the clouds, "I know something you don't know" crowd like doretta, illustrate why your concerns are so reasonable.
At the bottom line, Portland is blanketed in a tapestry of wi-fi right now, it might not be in the future because MetroFi can't necessarily afford that it be.
doretta -
In the data comm world, $9Mil solely in Series A financing for a company with plans like MetroFi is less than peanuts. 8 years ago in Seattle a startup trying to provide the equivalent of just the high data-rate wireless backhaul for high-value customers (TeraBeam) only in Seattle raised over $100Mil in VC in their first major financing round. And how much is Google putting into S.F.? It's safe to say the investing world is "skeptical" of the plans of companies like MetroFi now. Right now people should be asking some very hard questions how MetroFi actually plans to finance their whole venture because it's not at all clear the $$$ are there. By your own words, you were a community representative, so it was supposed to be your job to defend the community's right to know the facts, not play hide the football to defend a paternalistic (but actually quite typically PDX), approach to defend a private business project.
9:13 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Thanks, everyone, for this conversation. I'm learning a lot.
9:26 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Thomas-- so wifi sucks, but it was a huge advantage for your business? I have to say I don't follow the logic, there...
9:31 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
Thomas is arguing that he had wi-fi at his cafe, which attracted customers. With city-wide wi-fi, no more business advantage for those cafes that invest in wi-fi.
This is a little bit like that bar owner in Corvallis who had the only non-smoking bar in town -- who sued when the city made everyone go non-smoking.
Failing to see the forest because you've got your nose pressed up so close to the bark of your own tree.
Jul 20, '06
Schools are possibly underfunded.
There are poor people sleeping in doorways every night in PDX.
And the City of PDX is concerned with subsidizing wireless access to members of society that own a laptop?
Wirelss access isn't a right. If a person needs access, they can pony up the $$, go to a friend's house, or, use the public libraries, where internet access is already subsidized.
Just one more polarizing, ridiculous waste of time that turns moderates into red state, anti-gov't spending, republicans.
Thank you Tom Potter.
Jul 20, '06
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 20, 2006 9:31:45 AM
Thomas is arguing that he had wi-fi at his cafe, which attracted customers. With city-wide wi-fi, no more business advantage for those cafes that invest in wi-fi.
This is a little bit like that bar owner in Corvallis who had the only non-smoking bar in town -- who sued when the city made everyone go non-smoking.
Failing to see the forest because you've got your nose pressed up so close to the bark of your own tree.
I would have had WiFi regardless, it just so happens at the time it was an advantage to have it.
When you deploy a city sponsored network, what is going to happen to the smaller ISPs?
And to respond to the other post. Yes WiFi Still Sucks: This is saying do not rely on it as a primary business tool. Wireless is sub-optimal at BEST for email. It is not designed to move huge amounts of data around... Ever try transfering a 1 GIG file from one machine to another over WiFi? For surfing the net it's OK, you don't want to download an ISO image of your favorite Linux distro. WiFi is a shared technology, you have only so much bandwidth that the AP can give out, imagine 100 people on one AP, they will be gettng almost dialup speeds if everyone is trying to use it at once. Until they come out with switched packet management for WiFi, I will keep saying WiFi Still Sucks!
11:20 a.m.
Jul 20, '06
And the City of PDX is concerned with subsidizing wireless access to members of society that own a laptop?
Um, no. Have you read any of the material, or even this thread? MetroFi pays for this network, and (if their business model actually works) does so by serving ads to its users' browsers. While the City has said that it wants to make use of the network for some City services, the agreement contains no commitment whatsoever requiring them to do so.
In your world, that's a subsidy?
Jul 20, '06
Yes, in my world it is a subsidy.
When the Gov't provides something for free or deeply discounted rates, and crowds out private investment in the process, a subsidy has been provided to the public.
Any yes, there are subsidies of all stripes that have benefited people on all sides of the political spectrum.
If MetroFi is paying less (via receiving this right) to the city than it would cost them to build it out and compete (that word compete is very troubling to liberals such as you, b!x, as it doesn't fit in very well with socialism) with other businesses, then it is a subsidy.
So, the next question should be, who pays the cost of this subsidy?
Well, that question is quite obvious. Those people who do not travel into the WiFi service cloud.
As businessess write off their investments into providing WiFi to those that pay, they recoup their losses (like all businesses do)by charging extra for their products and services, or, by lowering their costs (reducing head count).
Subsidies lead to less competition. Less competition leads to higher prices or lower service.
12:25 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
Dan, the government isn't providing something for free, MetroFi is. The government merely facilitated that interest. There is no capital outlay I'm aware of that helps pay for the proposed service.
12:35 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
Wow, I go to sleep for a few hours, and look what happens! Cool. Too many threads to pick up on...
askQ's: how is it a community representative's responsibility to ensure fiscal soundness? Isn't that our elected officials' job? If we relied on community representatives to fill that role, how would we hold them accountable?
Whatever expectations we have of community representatives, articulating specific responses to your particular concerns on BlueOregon is surely not one of them. So your gratuitous insults (calling doretta a part of the "loopy left," and then only providing your half-assed justifications for it when asked) are once again unwelcome and counterproductive.
Speaking of accountability, if you're going to continue with the personal attacks, you should post under your own name.
Jul 20, '06
TJ,
I fully understand that the Gov't isn't makeing a cash outlay. If they are "facilitating" it, by offering (selling!)this company an exclusive advantage, then it is a subsidy to the company for the intention of providing subsidized(free) WiFi access to the laptop carrying public. This issue is providing a monopoly on a non-essential service.
I think we all can agree on subsidy for public health and safety. We must have adequate police and fire services. We need to count on the fact that the water turns on and power comes to our homes. Public and private industry monopolies are granted to insure service.
WiFi is not a life/death issue.
Jul 20, '06
Dan, the city hasn't sold anything to Metro Fi either. They have a contract that says they support (in spirit) Metro Fi building this network and they have authorized spending money on services from the network. It's not subsidizing anything. Now, there are plenty of substantive issues you could complain about with this, but it's really a lousy choice of whipping boys if you want to prove that Portland's City Council is a bunch of godless socialists who want to see small-business owners starving in the street. (That is what you're suggesting right?)
Jul 20, '06
Michael,
"They have a contract that says...", Really Michael? Have you read the actual contract?
I read the article.
There is a clear expectation on both sides that substantial payments will be made. It is a subsidy. They are receiving access to city owned property that a private firm does not have. This reduces their cost of entry by a considerable amount which defines a subsidy.
By providing city property to attach antennas, the city has effectively "sold" them the right to construct.
Your cute little bit about "godless socialists who want to see small business owners starving in the street" are your words, not mine.
Get back into the real world and make sure to send that kicker check back to the State. They could use the subsidy.
2:36 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
"So why put in a worthless unenforcable clause?"
Tom, this is mostly just idle speculation on my part, I was on the committee that evaluated the proposals submitted to the city. We had nothing to do with the contract except for suggesting some things to the city that we thought would limit the risk to the taxpayer when issues came up in the course of our discussions about the applicants. Everyone has the same access to that information that I have.
My guess is that the point for Metro-Fi is to make those kinds of issues a joint responsibility so if an interference issue comes up that can't be solved and it limits Metro-Fi's ability to meet the coverage specs or the performance specs Metro-Fi will have some ability to push back if the city puts the squeeze on them for it. Again, just idle speculation on my part.
There is an alternative to stewing in the blogospheric juices over that question. Logan Kleier is the project manager for UnWire Portland for the city. Call city/county information and referral at 503-823-4000 and ask them to connect you to him and then ask him about the language you are concerned about. Or send him email if that works better for you--you can probably get his address from the city. I only just met the guy yesterday, for a total of about 20 seconds, but my experience with other city employees in similar jobs is that they are happy to answer civil questions from concerned citizens. In fact, they are often pathetically glad when someone starts with an honest question instead of an accusation. After reading this thread I'm sure you can understand why. He's new on the job so he might have to get back to you.
2:50 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
"They are receiving access to city owned property that a private firm does not have. This reduces their cost of entry by a considerable amount which defines a subsidy."
In the first place, they are a private firm. In the second place, every other private firm had the same opportunity to present a proposal that they did. This isn't a Bush admin no-bid contract situation.
The city is not providing access for free. Metro-Fi will be paying for the use of city assets. That they have an agreement with the city to provide the access is certainly an advantage for them but "subsidy" is not really the right description.
By your definition, any company that has a contract to provide goods and services to the city is getting a subsidy, after all, the city is paying them money they aren't paying to someone else.
2:55 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
"We (the real wireless geeks) were not consulted on this matter. Nigel did not represent PTP at all it was in his own best interest(I'm not faulting him btw, he just and a dog in the fight) Most of these people where hand-picked due to their complete lack of knowledge of the tech and why it would not actually work."
Nigel was on the steering committee for the project. The evaluation committee was chock-full-o-geeks.
Jul 20, '06
Doretta,
thanks for inserting the anti-Bush jab. Liberals (good liberals that is) can't go more than 20 minutes on any subject without somehow bringing GW into the picture. It always puts a smile on my face to see what a creative group you are.
Just the other day I commented on how slow traffic was and decided it must be GW with-holding Federal Hwy funds to slow traffic down, increase my idle time so I'd burn more fule, wreck the environment and put cash in Chevron's pocket. Damn that GW!
You are correct. There are many subsidies granted within the city. Many of which serve no purpose, or distort efficiency.
Most city contracts are for services that have to be done. We have to repair the roads to some degree.
We hire consultants for odd jobs that are not continually recurring and are needed for society to function with safety.
bla, bla bla, etc. etc.
Someone sitting on a bench in the park blocks logging onto Craigslist really doesn't fall into necessity.
ONCE AGAIN. They could go to the library. We are already paying taxes for that.
3:10 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
"Oh, and just in case someone says "all ISPs have that" I should say that, for example, mine does not. Nowhere in its TOS do the words "offensive", "indecent", or "hateful" appear. And "pornography" apppears only in the context of prohibiting child pornography."
Dude, who needs words like "offensive", "indecent", or "hateful" when you have sentences like:
"Speakeasy reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to make a determination of what constitutes abuse and you agree that Speakeasy's determination is final and binding on you."
Your domain registrar, incidentally, says:
"Examples of inappropriate domains are ones that include third parties' trademarks and/or references to hate, hate groups, child pornography, offensive names, etc. We reserve the right to define a domain as inappropriate."
I like the creeping fascism we are constantly subject to as little as you do and, in fact, TOS clauses like the one you quoted are a direct result of it but not in the way you imply. That is not about ISPs engaging in censorship, it's about ISPs engaging in legal CYA to try and insulate themselves against the fascists who keep trying to pin them with responsibilities for their customers' actions.
3:12 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
If this is the probable death knell of the PTP, why is the head of the PTP signing off on the idea?
3:44 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
"thanks for inserting the anti-Bush jab. Liberals (good liberals that is) can't go more than 20 minutes on any subject without somehow bringing GW into the picture. It always puts a smile on my face to see what a creative group you are."
Dan, I'm glad you can laugh and make up silly stories to cover the pain you must feel over the fact that those amazingly wasteful no-bid projects are all too real.
"Yes, in my world it is a subsidy."
In your world do utility companies never put poles or cabling in the public right-of-way? Do licensed spectra for commercial radio and TV not exist? Your world may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it certainly isn't the one we live in.
Jul 20, '06
If this is the probable death knell of the PTP, why is the head of the PTP signing off on the idea?
Death knell? You dont know us too well do ya. The only forces that could hope to kill off the PTP are the members of the PTP. What we are pointing our here are some real issues that will impact everyones wifi coverage, not just the PTP's.
So if MetroFi does shout out the wifi in the city I would think that a vocal "Back off...Bad 800lb Gorilla" from more folks than just the PTP.
liberals....socialism...Get back into the real world..
Hey Mr Troll, in the words of Jello Biafra...Nazi Punks F*** Off. Can we get kill files in the comment section so we can filter out the noise?:)-
Nigel was on the steering committee for the project. The evaluation committee was chock-full-o-geeks.
Chock Full?? Whats the deifinition of chuck full? What ever it is the PTP as the largest community wifi effrot in portland at the time was decidedly NOT ask to participate or offer comments before the RFP was presented. After the fact, yea Matt Lampe came down to talk with us at a meeting. It was not ever an issue of it having to be done, it jsut would have gone a long way to avoiding threads liek we are having here, heck it might even have done away with the apathetic "oh the city is going to do what it wants anyway, we dont count for squat" mood some PTPers had.
Logan Kleier is the project manager for UnWire Portland for the city.
I just got off the phone with him. Great guy and very willing to talk about the issues we are bringing up. Thanks for the pointer to him.
8.30 is a messy little choice of words, and he expressed much of what you said Doretta. Yes the city knows it cant do much and encourage is such a weak word it almost amounts to zippo, yet it is still in there. I hope over time and with some more interaction we can hammer out some assurences to fix up that messy chunck of verbage.
More as it happens.
-tomhiggins
4:08 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
The passage of the MetroFi contract is a great benefit and an interesting innovative step for Portland. Doretta is right to say that there is risk involved in the project, but it moves beyond just the business risk of VC-backed MetroFi. There is also an important social risk that the configuration of MetroFi/City wireless infrastructure will be a missed opportunity for increasing the success of our residents.
what is not know is that the City also passed (5-0) a Digital Opportunity Resolution that makes it the policy of the City to maximize the benefits of the wireless infrastructure by ensuring that all of our citizens can participate, not those that sit in coffee shops or their backyards on their zippy laptops.
According to an Oregon PUC in 2005 approximately 55% of our low-income families do not have an Internet connection in their home. There are 15,000 plus Portland area children who struggle in school today because they do not have a computer or Internet connection at home. Without a convenient access to a computer and the Internet kids are being left behind. There is a whole generation of Portland residents who graduated from high school into living wage manufacturing jobs. Today, eight out of ten new jobs require computer skills and kids without those skills will be left behind.
The same PUC study mentioned above asked those who did not have an Internet connection whether they would be getting one in the next year. For households under $25,000 per year, 75% of those that did NOT have Internet in their homes did not intend to purchase services.
The reasons? Only 28% of those (<$25K) that did not have it said that is cost too much. The single biggest reason of not purchasing service was "Don't think its relevant (45%)". The rest of the reasons were all single digits - "Don't know how to use Computer and/or Internet (3.4%)", "Elderly, Retired, Too Old (6.5%)", etc.
The key to the success of the Unwire Portland in attracting low-income families onto the network is not the free price point -- thought that WILL be very helpful -- but a number of targeted supports to build an onramp to wireless access.
Here are three things cited in the resolution and that make sense:
Access to Affordable or Free (FreeGeek)Computers
Maximize opportunties for individuals to receive computer and Internet training and support at existing centers, as well as creation of volunteer "technology ambassadors" that go out into the neighborhoods to help friends, family and neighbors connect
CONTENT!!! There has to be a reason for families to go online and that is relevant content that helps them improve their lives by accessing educational opportunities, healthcare, jobs, and becoming more engaged in their communities.
To be fair, Portland has suffered a bit of a disadvantage because we are first. The thinking about how to help connect people, especially poor people, has matured. This is the issue in San Francisco, the issue in Philadelphia and Atlanta. We are playing catch-up to these cities in our plans to connect our low-income residents to the wireless cloud.
Unwire Portland is about a gateway to the economy. And Portland can be a leader by using this tool to develop our economy and to prepare our citizens to compete in the modern technology-rich, increasing global economy. Kids growing up in Portland today won’t only be competing with kids in Seattle and San Francisco for jobs, they will be competing with kids in Bangalore and Bhopal, Shanghai and Saigon.
The benefits of free service on the Unwire Portland network will not trickle down to poor people. The Digital Opportunity resolution is the FIRST step toward creating a powerful set of strategies to connect people with technology. Next, the City needs to make those strategies real by working with private sector and community partners to develop operational approaches that make sense and funding streams to support them.
Jul 20, '06
Doretta,
I think I covered the utilities in the necessary monopoly part.
Good try though.
Tom,
How about an anger mgmgt class. You can probably find one paid for by the city. In your case, I would consider it a necessary subsidy.
Try and smile more often. Nobody like to be around a big meanie. :) ;) ;') :-| :>(
Jul 20, '06
not those that sit in coffee shops or their backyards on their zippy laptops.
So does the homeless kid with the donated laptop who uses the PTP Pioneer Sqaure Node fit into your coffe shop jab or the zippy laptop zinger?
Fact is the PTP has made some inroads to getting access to folks in the city that would not otherwise have free acess, not as much as we like but then again when you run on donations and voluntere efforts you cant get the same results as tens of thousand dollar funded comittes or tax dollar funded efforts. If you want to help out we will gladly help you find a place to put your efforts in getting the access to more people who need it.
Personal accoutning...A while back I lived in a nieghborhood with a couple of lower income apts. I was running a PTP node off the roof of my house. I got to know two the people from the apts and told them about the free wifi. One was skipping bills to pay for an MSN account so he could do school work and the other was camping at the libraries to get time online. I gave one a wifi card for her PC and got the other a bottom of the line USB wifi divice I had laying around. Once I helped them lock on to my signal they were off and running. Within a month or so THEY helped 4 other people from the apts to use the node. A few months after that a near by neighbor with a rooftop started repeating my signal to get a little more coverage. The news spread and the node got used. Only one person abused the node and once I talked to them we came up with a way to cache the items they wanted localy so they would not impact the DSL.
How much of an area was my one node able to handle? http://www.personaltelco.net/gallery/node236/node236_2
And thats just one PTP nodes story. How much did this cost the city? Zippo. Would it handel hundreds of users? Nope, not as it stood.
To say the the exisitng wifi in Portland is for coffe shop customers or folks with zippy laptops is a fallacy.
Access to Affordable or Free (FreeGeek)Computers
Freegeek is an amzing resource that I hope factors into the overall plan to uplift folks who can not cover the cost of gear and access. We have used them to help build the server boxes that run the PTP nodes. If you are not doing something to help freegeek then run, do not walk, to thier doors and offer up time/money/oldgear.
Maximize opportunties for individuals to receive computer and Internet training and support at existing centers, as well as creation of volunteer "technology ambassadors" that go out into the neighborhoods to help friends, family and neighbors connect
Sort of like the PTP run workshops/meeeetings and Freegeek's classes, Yea, and all that with zero tax dollars or city involvement. Imagine what could have been done had there been a want by the city to support the local commubity groups as well as bringing in a company to build a for pay network with a freewithads offering?
- CONTENT!!! There has to be a reason for families to go online and that is relevant content that helps them improve their lives by accessing educational opportunities, healthcare, jobs, and becoming more engaged in their communities.
Google does a great job at bringing the content of the networks vast embarssment of riches to anyone who can type.
Local Content is a whole other story, that involves either large sums of cash or community voluntere work to make something that is relevant to the communities it will server. There is a ton of stuff out there already relevant to what your talking about. Portals are near free to make, sowhats stopping folks from doing it?
As much work as is being done in Portland to bring access to everyone (ptp, freegeek, oneequality, etc etc) there is a lot more that needs doing. Do we look to tax funded projects to help out or try to rally more comminuty volunteer supprt/donations/grants..or a blend of all that?
-tomhiggins
5:48 p.m.
Jul 20, '06
"I think I covered the utilities in the necessary monopoly part."
Ah, but today's "neccessary monopoly" was yesterday's new-fangled unnecessary technology.
There is a pretty strong parallel between, for example, the telephone and the Internet.
Humans did without electricity for quite some time, for that matter.
I guess I missed the part where you addressed the radio and TV spectra.
Jul 20, '06
How much will not establishing the WiFi cloud cost the taxpayers of Portland (through personal outlay)? More than having it will.
If there were a proposal to establish a "cell phone cloud" and you could ditch your provider, would there be a debate? What's the diff?
Jul 21, '06
Interesting how many people have such strong opinions and yet so little real information ...
Before making just a few summary points, it is disappointing to me as a left-wing progressive (e.g. in my mind our criminal-in-chief should be tried in the Hague, single-payer healthcare established by simply removing the age limits from Medicare, and that we should pay for a set of basic services including basic communication services through taxes because there is no viable business model in providing the foundational services that make us a society capable of effective representative government), this thread demonstrates exactly why we on the progressive left are ineffective. The right-wingers here raised points that are factually valid and need to be answered with something other than BS.
So here's a few items that those of you who think you know so much might want to spend some shut up time considering and investigating:
1) The rightwingers are correct that the City is providing what colloquially would be called a "subsidy". They are trading something of value - sites for access points and backhaul transceivers. Under tax law if two private parties did this they would have to be a value on it. If you are a business, you would want to declare the deficit between that value and what you received in return as a loss, and would be required to declare any excess value you received in return as income. MetroFi will be required to put a valuation on what they are in effect leasing on their tax returns and to their investors. That's it, there is no room to argue that. The real question here is just how smart those involved on the City side were when they cut this deal. I think doretta's persistence in talking and saying nothing since she knows so much about in the absence of any real knowledge about finances or the technology, and the fixation folks have on the fact PDX isn't kicking in any cash in their arguments why this is "free" to the city, provide a pretty good idea that the people of PDX probably are giving away much more of real value than is appreciated in the total deal over as many years as MetroFi operates if real valuations were put on all components of the deal.
2) With regard to the interference issue: Just because an RF band is set aside for "unlicensed" operation does not mean anyone has the right to operate an RF transmitter in that band, and both an access point and your computer are RF transmitters. In fact, you only have a right to operate an RF transmitter if you are not interfering with others who also are operating RF transmitters. You are required to cease operation if you are interfering with others in the band. Period. You can see the problem here: Who's interfering with whom when multiple WiFi carriers are operating and everyone is experiencing data rate degradations? Clearly, it becomes a matter of whom has the biggest stick. Government agencies like a city most certainly would have a sympathetic hearing before the FCC if they represented that they were using MetroFi's service for city data communications.
As quoted here, 8.30 says
"8.30 Non-interference. The Parties acknowledge and agree that in order to maximize performance and reliability of the System as well as to minimize any interference for private parties, the City will encourage citizens and businesses to limit use in bands and access channels not employed by Licensee in a particular area."
This is a huge contractual club MetroFi has over the City. First it obligates the City to actually do something, and it gives MetroFi the right to ask a court to decide what "encourage" means unless that meaning is delimited somewhere in a definitions section of the contract. MetroFi, or more precisely their lawyers and investors, knows that and I assure you they are planning to use this contractual right in any way they have to to make competing Wi-Fi channels go dark if it is in their interest. They have a legal fiduciary obligation to do so.
Second, in interpreting what the City can do to "encourage" folks to get off the band, the court will be obligated to take into account that under Federal law and FCC regs no one has the "right" to operate an RF transmitter, even in an unlicensed band, and has an affirmative obligation to shut-off an interfering RF transmitter. MetroFi and any allies they have on the city side know that also.
So as innocuous as it sounds, "encourage" can have quite a bit of legal enforcement clout, if MetroFi decides to fire up the legal tools this actually provides them, ultimately resulting in an order from the City or FCC to turn off your WiFi AP if MetroFi starts the process by asserting their contractual rights (And do you have $100K or more to go to court to keep you personal WiFi AP since that would be your recourse to any such enforcement order?). If Logan Kleir tells you otherwise, regardless of whether he is a "nice guy", he is either a liar, or ignorant, and perhaps both.
Jul 21, '06
One thing I forgot to add about my first point that, unfortunately, the rightwingers are right when it comes to that the City is providing something of value (a subsidy if you will) in this deal and those arguing otherwise are just add reinforcement to the stereotype that dingy independent and left types aren't in the real world:
There is quite a bit of accepted practice and established law in putting valuations on what the City is providing form the cellphone industry (siting cell nodes on private buildings in metro areas). In addition there is some basis for valuing any defense the City would provide in assuring MetroFi has priority access to RF bandwidth based on the auction value of "cellphone" licenses (several services in several bands) and the sales value of AM and FM band broadcast licenses (which can be in the low milliions in upper mid-size markets).
Jul 21, '06
Just a few days after MetroFi gets the greenlight for the Portland project this little bit of news slips onto the datastream.
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006777.html "MetroFi Partners with AT&T on Riverside, Calif., Bid
By Glenn Fleishman
Does this mean 1 Mbps downstream for free is unsustainable? News.com reports that MetroFi, one of the three leading U.S. metro-scale Wi-Fi operators, has partnered with AT&T for a bid on the 65-square-mile Riverside, Calif., network. In what might be a footnote or might be a significant development, this bid offers only 512 Kbps downstream at no cost, unlike all of MetroFi’s other bids and operations, which offer 1 Mbps downstream. That rate is available from AT&T at $20 per month, News.com reports. (Upstream rates are a mere 256 Kbps in both cases, unlike most of the paid services in which 1 Mbps symmetrical is offered.) "
Interesting.
Jul 21, '06
Doretta,
You didn't miss anything about me calling TV access a necessary utility.
I never said it was!
You don't have to have a TV to live a safe and practical life. You do need electricity even though you desparately state,
"Humans did without electricity for quite some time for that matter"
Good one Doretta! Score one major point for the "back to the stone age" liberals.
Try doing any of the following without electicity:
-Running an efficient hospital -Keeping food cool and reducing bacteria growth on such food -Providing critical communication to police and firemen
Keep trying Doretta. You'll eventually hit on something that sticks.
11:25 a.m.
Jul 21, '06
What's not "real world" is pretending that an operation that doesn't impact the city's bottom line budget, deserves in any way to be referred to as a "subsidy." All three of Webster's definitions of the word involve either the term "money" or the term "grant" (the noun form, not the verb):
No money is leaving city coffers to provide node access. It's not a subsidy. It's the facilitation of private enterprise in the public interest, which I generally see as a good thing.
Jul 21, '06
TJ,
The grant is public property useage and the exclusive use of such. Thanks for providing the definition to make my point.
..or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
Maybe you can now explain to Doretta how we actually do need electricity. She seems stuck on that point.
11:50 a.m.
Jul 21, '06
Dan, it's NOT an exclusive use contract. And you cannot "grant" use of a building--that's the verb form. A grant is free money. Portland is providing none.
We do need electricity. We also need internet access, particularly for two of the areas you describe: hospitals and in-field emergency response. The difference can be lifesaving. Using wifi to transmit EKGs to the hospital from the field (such as in a case of ST-elevated myocardial infarction, ie a major and highly damaging heart attack) can drastically cut the time from diagnosis to the execution of emergency angioplasty. Internet access will be no less vital than electricity within the next 10 years, and to not plan for that obvious eventuality is a poor idea IMO.
Jul 21, '06
TJ,
Are you implying that currently, if there is a major heart attack downtown, our medical providers are hindered due to a lack of FREE internet coverage?
Don't think you quite made solid contact on this one. Back to the dug-out for you.
What am I thinking. All hail the city of PDX for improving health care! All hail MetroFi for speeding up the transmission of life saving information!
For any of you trial lawyers out there, you may want to employ Torrid Joe as your consultant. He has just handed you an easy class action law suit.
Go after the deep pockets of Providence. According to TJ, current heart attack victims lounging around the park blocks are not receiving the quality care they could be if a paltry investment of 10-16 big ones were made. This is one days' revenue for Providence. TJ could explain to the jury how they skimped out on making this investment and document how many victims would be alive today if only a wireless cloud had been in place earlier.
How silly of me to have questioned you TJ.
And no TJ, we won't consider wireless access as important as electricity. EVER.
(come on Libs, come defend TJ and Doretta on how WiFi will some day be as crucial to survival as electricity)
One more in the StoneAge Liberal party!
Jul 21, '06
Dan, it's a shame you're focusing so much energy on the public subsidy, stone-age lefty bit, because there are plenty of pertinent things you could complain about.
For example:
Corpus Christie cost $15M and it's pretty much flat and treeless. How can they do Portland for $5M less?
Can banner ads really pay for both the bandwidth and the physical infrastructure? I can't imagine that click-through ads result in more than 1% sales-conversion anywhere on the internet. With a limited set of eyes reading the ads, that will be less. Couple that with the fact that users of the free-internet are probably either just hopping on for a quick minute, less able to afford non-essentials or just plain cheap, and that sales conversion rate goes down further. If they're charging advertisers by click, I'm skeptical that many people will see it as a good investment of the advertising budget.
As much as I think Clive Cook spoke at the meeting out of spite, not a desire to help the city, I do think that there's something of value in his statement that the numbers don't seem to work out.
There's also the aforementioned "stomping on everyone else's network" concern, which does seem like it will be unavoidable in some places.
There's also the fact that Metro Fi is currently $10M in debt, and that Chuck Haas was one of the founders who ran Covad over $1B into the red.
There's also the fact that the City isn't even comitted to actually being an anchor tenant on it, they're just authorized to be, and that the previously touted parking meter solution isn't even technically worked out yet, and presumably may not ever come to fruition. Even if Haas was being honest when he said that the city would only provide 25% of their revenue at most, 25% of your potential revenue is A LOT to shrug off.
If business customers are supposed to be the bread and butter, I'd be worried that any traditional communications salesperson could convince a customer to stay way away from Metro Fi, either with better service offerings, or FUD if necessary.
See Dan, all of these are things you could be complaining about.
12:26 p.m.
Jul 21, '06
Well Dan, I'm sorry you're not ready to discuss this like an adult. Save the sarcasm and distortion away from the point of discussion--which was whether internet service is or will be as essential to life's daily function as electricity. Your misdirection by contending that I implied adequate prehospital care is dependent on free wifi access is entirely unappreciated. What I DID say was that to medical providers, in-field internet access can be a boon to both accurate recordkeeping in the treatment of patients, and also to the treatment itself when speed is of the essence and quick data transmittal fosters quicker treatment.
You further distort what I said by claiming I indicated WIRELESS access will become "as important" as electricity. I said no such thing.
If you want to discuss legitimate points being raised, I'm happy to engage you. If you want to hide behind ad hominem meanderings into the realm of the irrelevant, don't expect me to come chasing after you. You're best left hidden, in that case.
Jul 21, '06
I appologize TJ,
you actually said,
"Internet access will be no less vital than electricity within the next 10 years"
-TJ July 21, 10:53 AM
No need to debate your own words or definitions. They are there for all to see.
Jul 21, '06
the government isn't providing something for free, MetroFi is. The government merely facilitated that interest. There is no capital outlay I'm aware of that helps pay for the proposed service.
Except the City gave them a guarantee of purchasing service for city use...I seriously doubt they would have decided to build here if that guarantee wasnt there.
And just wait for the hacks.....a "digital slug" so to speak for the parking meters. All you need is a crafty teenager with a laptop or PDA.
1:37 p.m.
Jul 21, '06
I stand by that statement, Dan. I see once challenged to be substantive, you went quiet.
1:47 p.m.
Jul 21, '06
"Except the City gave them a guarantee of purchasing service for city use...I seriously doubt they would have decided to build here if that guarantee wasnt there."
No, sorry, wrong again. The city gave no guarantees. There are a number of things the city hopes to be able to do with this network at a lower cost than what they are currently doing and a number of other things they hope to do that will make their employees who work in the field more efficient but they are not committed to purchasing any service.
1:52 p.m.
Jul 21, '06
"The grant is public property useage and the exclusive use of such."
No amount of your repeating that the contract is for exclusive use is going to make it true.
3:29 p.m.
Jul 21, '06
"1) The rightwingers are correct that the City is providing what colloquially would be called a "subsidy"."
You keep pretending you have something to contribute but all you have to offer is misleading rhetoric. The definition of a "subsidy", colloquially or otherwise, does not include evaluating the market value of an asset and then exchanging it for cash, goods or services of equal value. That is what the city expects to do with the access to public infrastructure they will be providing Metro-Fi. All that crap about excess valuation and taxes, blah, blah, blah is just snow job. Metro-Fi will similarly be purchasing access to non-public infrastructure from others, probably PGE for one. Will you then claim that PGE is "subsidizing" WiFi in Portland?
"2) With regard to the interference issue: Just because an RF band is set aside for "unlicensed" operation does not mean anyone has the right to operate an RF transmitter in that band, and both an access point and your computer are RF transmitters. In fact, you only have a right to operate an RF transmitter if you are not interfering with others who also are operating RF transmitters."
My understanding is that WiFi devices fall into a category where it works roughly as follows:
If your equipment does not have the applicable authorizations having to do with power output, antenna gain etc. (normally obtained by the manufacturer) you have no right to operate it.
If your equipment, despite being otherwise within the rules, interferes with licensed equipment, the licensed equipment has priority and you must stop operating your equipment or change your mode of operation so that it no longer causes interference. This is where the "affirmative obligation to shut off an interfering RF transmitter" comes in.
You must accept any interference that interferes with the operation of your device, even to the point where the interference makes your device completely inoperable--meaning the FCC is not going to come to your rescue and ask anyone else to shut down their equipment just because it is interfering with yours. Everyone else using unlicensed spectrum WiFi is in that same boat. They also have no right to sqawk to the FCC about interference.
If you have information that says otherwise, please share.
"MetroFi, or more precisely their lawyers and investors, knows that and I assure you they are planning to use this contractual right in any way they have to to make competing Wi-Fi channels go dark if it is in their interest."
Presumably what Metro-Fi and their investors know is that the FCC has already said that the rules that protect your right to have a TV antenna on your property no matter what your homeowner's association says also applies to your right to operate WiFi equipment on property "within your control" (owned and leased both fall within this category). The FCC explicitly included state and local governments in the category of entities that can't contravene that right.
5:44 p.m.
Jul 21, '06
Dan,
I'll make one more attempt to have an actual conversation with you. If the best you can do in return is misrepresent what I have said for the purpose of making inane comments then it will be my last.
"You didn't miss anything about me calling TV access a necessary utility."
My point about TV and radio spectra was that the government licenses them to private companies, thus granting those companies access not enjoyed by other companies. My question for you is whether or not you find that acceptable.
My point about "necessary monopolies" is that you are finding those services essential in hindsight. Of course I don't want to do without electricity. Nevertheless, humanity managed to successfully populate most of the planet without benefit of it. By the way, most people would consider the gap between the stone age and the widespread availability of electrical power to be a fairly significant one. There's another electrical power parallel to a piece of this discussionr. In fact, people did have ways to keep food cool to prevent spoilage before electrical power became available. A whole set of large and small businesses ceased providing jobs when the collection, storage and distribution of ice nose-dived after electrical powered refrigeration equipment appeared on the scene.
However, as I mentioned, I think the telephone provides a better analogy to Internet access. The telephone is certainly considered essential today yet there were plenty of people who thought it was an unnecessary technology and just another way to extract payment from the citizenry when it was introduced. People managed to communicate before the telephone. The telephone just made it happen better and faster--very much like the Internet makes the sharing of many kinds of information better and faster today. I use both the telephone and the Internet many times a day but at this point the Internet is more essential to me than the phone is.
Jul 21, '06
doretta (and unfortunately torridjoe because I hate to lump him in the dilettante crowd with doretta) is just flat wrong about the legal definition of what a subsidy is.
Black's Law Dictionary defines:
subsidy, n1. A grant, usually made by the government, to an enterprise whose promotion is considered to be in the public interest.
In turn Black's also defines:
grant, n. 1. An agreement that creates a right of any description other than the one held by the grantor. Examples include leases, easements, charges, patents, franchises, powers, and licenses.
The purpose of market valuations is to quantify the value of the subsidy, not define whether something is a subsidy.
doretta's recititation of the interference issue is only superficially correct in that it roughly describes the situation between private parties that are equals.
My point raised issues not covered in that framework. First, the FCC most certainly does claim authority to regulate interference from RF transmitters for which unlicensed operation is permitted, and recognizes the authority of local and state governmental entities to regulate RF transmitters for which unlicensed operation is permitted in certain circumstances:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1844A1.doc
Under that claim of authority, they preclude government authorities from prohibiting private parties from operating RF transmitters for which unlicensed operation is permitted solely within private property "except under certain exceptions for safety and historic preservation." Note that contrary to doretta's superficial presentation, none of these details apply if someone else wants to offer a service on their own dime that operates in public spaces competing with MetroFi.
One has to go to 47 CFR 1.4000(a)(1) to actually understand what this means. There one finds 47 CFR 1.4000(b)(1) says:
(b) Any restriction otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section is permitted if: (1) It is necessary to accomplish a clearly defined, legitimate safety objective that is either stated in the text, preamble, or legislative history of the restriction or described as applying to that restriction in a document that is readily available to antenna users, and would be applied to the extent practicable in a non-discriminatory manner to other appurtenances, devices, or fixtures that are comparable in size and weight and pose a similar or greater safety risk as these antennas and to which local regulation would normally apply;
So the City only needs to state in the text enacting a restriction on other WiFi APs even in privates spaces that degradations to the City's data communications by those devices poses a safety risk. I'm just guessing that doretta will engage in further sophistry trying to argue this doesn't real pose any worries, but I think there is no doubt in the mind of the adults reading here what the City would do if they wanted WiFi APs interfering with MetroFi's service to go dark.
The only question left is whether said power of the City and the FCC applies to the made up distinction between interference by an RF transmitter permitted for unlicensed operation with licensed transmissions versus other unlicensed transmissions. 47 CFR 15 ("Part 15") sets out the regulations for unlicensed operation of RF transmitters. First 47 CFR 15.5(a),(b) and (c) says:
(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment ...
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused ...
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Thus at least in general no distinction is made about licensed and unlicensed transmissions. It all comes down to the definition of "harmful interference" and any particular exemptions for unlicensed operation. "Unlicensed operation" is not a defined term. But 15 CFR 15.3(m) defines
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.
This distinction makes no inherent distinction with regard to interference with licensed or unlicensed operation, only whether an interferer degrades or obstructs operation of other devices operating in accordance with this chapter (Chapter 1 of U.S. Title 47) which covers all telecommunications including all licensed and unlicensed RF transmissions.
So in the end, it all comes down to the fact the FCC claims the right to regulate unlicensed operations and whether the City can make a case the FCC finds worth acting on. And in actual fact, it comes down to whether the City would attempt to enact a regulation pursuant to a safety argument and whether the FCC would agree. According to the rule, the FCC would agree if the City simply stated so in the regulation since the FCC would claim they don't want to second-guess an assertion safety is involved by a local or state jurisdiction.
The real question is this: Who is feeding you this information and superficial interpretation doretta, since it seems that you don't really understand the substance of it. Is it Logan? Or are you just parroting things you thought you understood given you and the others in your secret club banded together by the NDA to not share relevent information about the viability of MetroFi's business model?
And by the way, with regard to exclusive use of city facilities by MetroFi: This may not appear literally in the contract, but PDX would have a hard time arguing to a judge they were fulfilling their obligation under the contract to "encourage" interferers to not interfere if they allowed other competitors to site their transmitters co-resident with MetroFi's.
Jul 21, '06
As much fun as it is to watch wonks and professional trolls go at each others nethers over the poltical wangling de jour like a ring full of juiced up WWF wraslers going for the strap in a Losser Leaves Town match....there are those of us who actualy care about the issue at hand.
You guys want to rip on this thing there are so many vectors. Give the Left VS Right thing a break, it may play well on Fox or down at your local (insert your leaning) watering hole but in this thread it means your either techincaly inept and/or socialy unaware of wahts going on.
Mike reiterates some great points. The track record of MetroFi's CEO is an interesting bit that may explain why they now have AT&T as a partner in thier wifi installs. There's also the fact that Metro Fi is currently $10M in debt, and that Chuck Haas was one of the founders who ran Covad over $1B into the red.
Now some points that I think worthy to respond to from the muck of the last bunch of post.
The Parking Meters...It sounds like the very thing that was being shown to be the Big Money Saver for the city, that being moving the parking meters form an expensive cell phone based system to using the wifi cloud metrofi says it will build, is on hold at best and may never be done. If I were cynical I would say Bait and Switch, but nothing is being swithced in its place, so if I were cynical I would call BS on it. How can that item go from being the best of breed dog in the show to a no show?
Also to say that the parking meters with wifi will be hackable...what makes you think they are not already hackable. What makes you think parking meters of any kind were ever unhackable? Come on folks, it you think about it long enough you will realize that most of your transaction wether on or off the net, are subject to hackable tactics. Identity theft and social engineering are ages old. If you think its just teenagers with laptops out ther doing this stuff then you are either trying to play some verbal story telling to prop up a bad arguement or you are so out of touch as to make your inclusion in a thread like this questionable at best.
Squashing Existing Wifi...be it PTP, Verialan, Stephouse, local community groups or just neighborhood nets...its a very real and very delicate problem. I do not doubt that if MetroFi wants to play a shouting game there will be folks with the smarts and the gear to go toe to toe with them both techincaly and PR wise. The press loves David V Gollaith stories and there are plans a plenty out in the wild to make spectrum sucking devices that will bring down a locations ability to use the wifi spectrum.
Lets make damn sure that all the parties involved realise the situation is sticky icky tricky...so lets measure twice and cut once. The tech forces in play need to be in communication with each other to make sure things go smoothly and there is no Gulf Of Tonkin incidents to muck things up.
Licensing - 802.11b.g and 802.11a is all UNLICENSED. If you want the protection of a license then you need to go get lots of WiMax stuff...oh wait we are talking reality here...so yea there are licensed areas of the specturm metrofi could use in order to mesh thier backhaul and lower the incidents of spectrum squashing.
Come on folks, lets focus on the real issues and leave the posturing for real politcal debates...like that Tram thing, or the Vera katz Statue.
-tomhiggins
11:11 p.m.
Jul 21, '06
No one is feeding me anything, ask. I said early on in this conversation that I'm not an expert on the FCC rules. I never disputed, however, that the FCC has the right to regulate unlicensed RF. Clearly they do. Do you know of any cases where they have chosen to address an interference issue between two unlicensed users who merely want to use the same frequencies in close proximity? What is your understanding of the provision that unlicensed applications must accept any interference that affects the operation of their device?
Metro-Fi will be trying to strike a balance between not stepping on anyone else's toes while still providing service to the entire area. There may be some places where that gets hairy. Those issues aren't particular to them. They are inherent in trying to do the project at all. I thought you said earlier that you'd like to see such a system but you objected to Metro-Fi's business model?
There are a whole host of other things that could be real issues for large WiFi projects beyond the possibility they will interfere with other installations. There are clearly some things that licensed users could legally do that would seriously interfere with WiFi on a large scale. There are even other unlicensed technologies that could seriously interfere with a large WiFi installation. None of that, however, is particular to Metro-Fi.
Jul 21, '06
[Off-topic comment deleted. -Editor.]
7:48 a.m.
Jul 22, '06
We've about beat this topic into the ground, I think, but just to clear up a couple loose ends on my part.
To me the point of non-exclusivity isn't that the city is going to immediately run out and offer some other company the opportunity to put WiFi transmitters right next to Metro-Fi's. Of course they won't. The point is that if Metro-Fi proves to be unable, for some reason, to provide what they have agreed to provide, the city is free to deal with someone else. There isn't any way for the city to guarantee that any company they might choose to work with will be successful. What they can and have tried to do is pick a credible project and structure the agreement to minimize the financial risk to the city in the event that they aren't.
The idea that Metro-Fi is putting one over on the rubes in Portland seems to me to be ridiculous on the face of it. It will be unfortunate for the city if this project doesn't pan out but it will be disastrous for Metro-Fi.
Metro-Fi, or any other successful proposer, may well find that something doesn't work exactly the way they'd hoped and may come back to the city and try to renegotiate terms. The city will have to cross that bridge when they come to it. If there is any indication they proposed or negotiated in bad faith that will get real sticky. That's a risk with any proposer but had there been any indication of that to this point the city would not have gone with Metro-Fi. And again, that scenario could be interpreted as the city having shot themselves in the foot but if Portland isn't happy with this project, for Metro-Fi it will be more like having shot themselves in the head.
<hr/>