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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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.

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

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. :) ;) ;') :-| :>(

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

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Off-topic comment deleted. -Editor.]