Here's a good analysis on the state of municipal broadband -- from www.progressive.org/mag/aaron0808.html:

"The Promise of Municipal Broadband"

By Craig Aaron, August 2008

When Mayor John Street announced plans to make Philadelphia the nation’s first major “wireless city” back in the fall of 2004, the press couldn’t get enough. “Forget cheese steaks, cream cheese, and brotherly love,” declared The New York Times. “Philadelphia wants to be known as the city of laptops.”

Philadelphia’s goal to cover 135 square miles with a cloud of Internet connectivity was ambitious. But the need was undeniable. High-speed Internet access was fast becoming an economic, educational, and social necessity. Yet most of Philly’s residents were stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide, unable to access or afford a broadband connection.

When Earthlink—a dial-up Internet company looking for a foothold in the broadband world—came forward promising to build a state-of-the-art wireless system without the city paying a dime, Philadelphia signed up. And soon, you couldn’t go a week without another major metropolis—San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, Portland, Oregon—jumping on the Wi-Fi bandwagon.
So what happened?

Three years later, many of the projects seem to be sputtering. The tens of thousands of new subscribers didn’t materialize. Getting the equipment up on streetlights and buildings proved more expensive and technically challenging than expected. Chicago and St. Louis scrapped their plans last summer. In Tempe, Arizona, a company called Gobility shuttered the system there and unplugged its customer-service line. Earthlink abandoned projects in San Francisco and Houston, before announcing it was getting out of the municipal wireless business altogether.

With its flagship Philadelphia project still unfinished, new Earthlink CEO Rolla P. Huff announced last fall that “making significant further investments in this business could be inconsistent with our objective of maximizing shareholder value.”

Then the press pounced, with stories appearing in the Associated Press, USA Today, BusinessWeek, and the Times, declaring municipal projects to be floundering, fading failures. One tech writer dismissed municipal wireless as “the monorail of the decade.”

But all the obituaries are premature. A closer look at what’s happening at projects across the country—public and private, wired and wireless, big and small—suggests that it’s far too early to start the funeral arrangements. Much of the media are confusing the collapse of one company—or one model of broadband deployment—with the failure of the entire idea of municipalities providing high-speed Internet services.

“It’s like someone striking out in a boat in 1490, it sinking, and people saying, ‘You know what? This whole ocean travel thing isn’t going to work out,’ ” says Christopher Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a Minneapolis-based research group that tracks municipal projects.

Even in Philadelphia, all is not lost. In June, a group of local investors announced they had arranged to take over Philadelphia’s network and offer free Wi-Fi outdoor—but details are sketchy.

Many projects—especially in small towns and mid-sized cities—are thriving. From Hermiston, Oregon, to Scottsburg, Indiana, to St. Cloud, Florida, city-owned wireless systems are up and running, serving local residents and businesses or local police and emergency workers. Places like Sallisaw, Oklahoma, and Kutztown, Pennsylvania, are building their own fiber-optic networks that offer high-speed Internet and cable TV.

In total, more than 400 cities and towns already have launched, or are developing, municipal broadband systems. Spending on municipal networks increased last year and is expected to keep rising. MuniWireless.com projects that annual spending on equipment and services will exceed $900 million by 2010.

Municipal broadband is caught up in a classic “hype cycle”—a term coined by the Gartner Research Group to chart technology trends. It works like this: First, new technology triggers a wave of excitement that builds to a “peak of inflated expectations.” For municipal broadband this was 2005’s heady days of “free Internet for everyone everywhere.”

After the peak, there’s a rapid slide toward what Gartner calls “the trough of disillusionment”—a.k.a. rock bottom or, in this case, the headline in the March 22 edition of The New York Times: “Hopes for Wireless Cities Are Fading.”

Vermont’s Tim Nulty isn’t mourning the troubles some cities are having with municipal wireless. To him, it was never the right technology for the job at hand. “Think about 747s and helicopters,” he says. “Helicopters are marvelous when they’re used for what they’re good at. But you don’t use them to fly thousands of people between Boston and Chicago. For that you need 747s.”

Wireless systems may offer mobility, but a fiber-optic network connected directly to homes boasts nearly unlimited capacity. Fiber is the jumbo jet of municipal broadband. Though conventional wisdom says fiber is too expensive or complicated for cities to handle, Nulty—who spent more than ten years in the ’70s and ’80s on Capitol Hill as the chief economist for the key Senate and House committees that make telecom policy—was recruited out of retirement to help the city of Burlington get a municipal fiber network off the ground.

That project became Burlington Telecom—a city department that now provides high-speed Internet, phone, and cable TV service to some 3,000 residential customers. While revenue from subscribers goes into the public coffers, at Nulty’s insistence the network itself was financed by private investors without any taxpayer money. Not only is the system up and running, but it already has a positive cash flow.

Nulty recently left Burlington Telecom to spearhead a project to bring fiber to smaller towns across Vermont. Twenty-five towns voted—many of them unanimously—to join a venture called the East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network. As in Burlington, the networks will be built without taxpayer funds.

“I’m convinced this is the only way we in Vermont are going to get access to this high-speed stuff,” Jerry Drugonis of Pittsfield, Vermont, told the Rutland Herald after the vote. “We’ve been at the tail end of the dog for a long time.”

It doesn’t necessarily take a city department to bring high-speed Internet access to local residents. Some of the most innovative projects are small-scale, community-based efforts.

“We’re finally coming back around to ideas that were around before the corporate franchise was shown to be a failure,” says Sascha Meinrath, research director of the New America Foundation’s Wireless Future Program, who launched one of the nation’s first community wireless projects while he was a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “So much money was being spent to push the corporate model that it was all cities heard about. There was no PR or marketing for community wireless groups. But unlike the corporations, their focus has always been maximizing the public good.”

In Asheville, North Carolina, the Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN) has been operating as a nonprofit Internet service provider since 1996, first with dial-up and now with wireless broadband. It uses “mesh network” technology created by a company called Meraki to serve hundreds of citizens in nine Asheville neighborhoods.

The network—the same type that Meraki is using to offer free wireless in San Francisco—allows many people in the same area to share one Internet connection. This type of neighbor-to-neighbor sharing is discouraged by the big phone and cable companies, but MAIN has its own connection to the Internet backbone.

MAIN is far from a traditional Internet Service Provider: It’s committed to closing the digital divide and recycles computers for use by local residents who otherwise couldn’t afford them; its website is a community media hub; and the group also runs a local low power FM radio station. Wally Bowen, MAIN’s executive director, sees the future of community media.

“I firmly believe that every public access TV operation, every community radio station, every nonprofit community technology center can be doing this,” he says. “It’s not rocket science. All of those technology-based nonprofits are strapped for revenue. We’ve got to figure out a way to capture some of those digital dollars that are falling out of our communities, and this is it.”

Small-town success stories are encouraging but they don’t answer whether municipal broadband can work in the big city. The recent completion of a citywide wireless network in Minneapolis suggests that cities may be learning from Philadelphia’s mistakes.

Minneapolis has already signed up 8,000 users, and its Wi-Fi network was used by emergency responders after the I-35W bridge collapse. Unlike Philadelphia, Minneapolis agreed to be the network’s “anchor tenant,” committing $1.25 million per year for the next decade.

“Having the city itself as the anchor tenant gives the provider an incentive to set up a good network,” says Esme Vos of MuniWireless.com. “From the get-go, there’s a set amount of money. Philadelphia never had that deal. San Francisco never had that deal.”

However, some in the Twin Cities are disappointed that Minneapolis opted to support a private network rather than constructing its own public one. “If a private company decides they just aren’t going to do it anymore, the community is stuck because it’s privately owned,” Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance explains. “If it’s publicly owned and the network is not going exactly as planned, they can decide if it’s still worth it for their police officers to have access; if it’s still worth it to have inspectors and social workers be able to enter their data remotely; if it’s still worth it for citizens to be able to connect anywhere. They can ask those questions and decide whether it’s good for the community or not.”

However, unlike Philadelphia, Minneapolis did choose a local company, U.S. Internet, to build the network. “That’s key,” Vos says. “U.S. Internet is not investing in a mobile handset project and trying to still provide DSL service and outsourcing their customer service to India. This is their main project.”

Local control—and with it, jobs and revenues staying in the community—appears to be one of the elements of success for municipal broadband projects large and small. The money stays in the community, jobs are being created, and everyone from firefighters to meter readers benefits.

“If you’re not sending money out to shareholders across the country and expecting a huge return on investment,” Mitchell says, “you can already have an advantage in terms of pricing it more reasonably to make sure your businesses and your people can afford to have fast connectivity that’s going to keep the city competitive regionally and globally.”

While municipal broadband projects can’t succeed without buy-in from local stakeholders, ubiquitous high-speed Internet access won’t be achieved via local governments or groups alone. We need a national broadband policy.

Back in March 2004, President Bush called for “universal affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.” Yet in 2008, we’re nowhere close. And the United States is falling further behind the rest of the world. Much of Asia and Europe enjoys broadband speeds that are twenty to fifty times faster than what we get here—and they pay less for it.

“We have a failure on the national level that’s too important to ignore,” says James Baller, an attorney who represents local governments and public utilities and closely follows municipal broadband issues. “Not to view broadband as a strategic asset is a significant shortcoming. The other leading countries of the world do view broadband in that light, and they are thinking about how to get more of it at much faster speeds and lower rates because it’s a platform for so many other things that are important.”

Policymakers could create incentives for local communities to build telecom networks, spurring new competition and growing the new market for entrepreneurs and innovators, especially in areas bypassed or underserved by the big phone and cable companies. Better yet, says Asheville’s Bowen, these incentives could mandate that systems be locally controlled and nonprofit, ensuring that the investment stays in the community.

Yet, fourteen states currently have laws on the books—drafted by phone and cable company lobbyists—restricting municipalities from erecting their own broadband systems. The Community Broadband Act, bipartisan legislation that already passed the Senate Commerce Committee, would tear down the roadblocks. “The first thing we have to do,” Mitchell says, “is make sure that communities that want to solve their own problems, that want to build the network they need, can do that.”

Congress and the Federal Communications Commission also could improve municipal wireless by setting aside a greater portion of the airwaves for public use. Wi-Fi systems operate on narrow “junk bands” already cluttered with cordless phones, baby monitors, and the like, requiring more transmitters and higher costs to set up a network.

Meanwhile, vast portions of the broadcast TV spectrum—as much as 70 percent in some markets—are sitting unused because of outdated regulations and a misinformation campaign waged by the broadcasters’ lobby. These “white spaces” would allow signals to go farther and travel through obstacles. “If we open up the unused spaces between the television channels, it suddenly becomes possible to deploy the network that we need at a quarter of the cost,” says Harold Feld of the Media Access Project, a public interest communications law firm in Washington.

There is growing bipartisan support for many of these policies. And the nation’s broadband policy—or lack thereof—is even becoming a presidential campaign issue. To his credit, John McCain is a lead sponsor of the Community Broadband Act, though he hasn’t always backed public interest policies during his years on the influential Senate Commerce Committee and voted against restoring crucial “Net Neutrality” protections.

For his part, Barack Obama hasn’t yet signed on to McCain’s community broadband bill. But he supports Net Neutrality and has pledged to make Internet issues a top priority of his administration. In a June speech in Flint, Michigan, Obama declared: “As President, I will set a simple goal: Every American should have the highest speed broadband access—no matter where you live, or how much money you have. We’ll connect schools, libraries, and hospitals. And we’ll take on special interests to unleash the power of wireless spectrum for our safety and connectivity.”

In the end, the biggest obstacles to universal, affordable Internet access aren’t economic or technical. They’re political. Broadband is too important to the economy, education, and, well, democracy to be at the mercy of Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T. It’s time to rethink the approach to these problems and move the discussion past short-term technical fixes and next quarter’s profits.

“We need to start looking at this as an infrastructure issue rather than as a business,” Feld says. “We don’t ask cities and towns to cost-justify bringing in fresh water and having a sewer system when we could outsource it to private companies. Nobody says, why should my town compete with the private water market? I can get Perrier, why should I have water? We treat water as a utility. We do the same thing with electricity. We have to take the same attitude here toward broadband.”

Craig Aaron is the communications director of Free Press, the national, nonpartisan media reform group. A senior editor of In These Times, he blogs regularly about media, journalism, and the future of the Internet at SavetheInternet.com, StopBigMedia.com, and The Huffington Post.

[UPDATE02] Once or twice a week I get the question, "I'm thinking about using Meraki's equipment, what do you think?" And I always start my answer much the same way. [As a disclaimer, I've known the Meraki folks since their time back at MIT -- my development teams used to collaborate actively with them.]

Meraki is a great system for quick do-it-yourself networking. The technology is elegant and the graphical user interface (mostly) intuitive. If you want a plug-and-play technology immediately deployed, it's a good solution. But that is far from the whole story.

As many of my readers know, I've been advocating for open tech for years and years -- so how does Meraki stack up? The core technologies in Meraki are open source -- but they've been smothered in a proprietary wrapper that makes Meraki little different from most "black box" solutions. Users can't easily view the code, change features (or add features, for that matter), fix bugs, or otherwise adapt the technology for their own uses. As a number of open source projects have discovered, even gaining access to information that was covered by existing open source licenses has become increasingly difficult as Meraki has become increasingly proprietary.

Most people think Meraki's back-end is free. They are wrong. In fact, Meraki plans tomay eventually charge for the use of their services. As a recent GovTech article reported, Meraki's founder stated that their solution "includes three years of its data center services in the price of the hardware." For those who forget, Meraki's hardware used to cost $49 for an indoor node, then the cost went up to $149 -- if you wanted more equipment, you had to pay a rate three times as much, and since Meraki's equipment is sole-sourced, you had to pay whatever they charged.

I fully expect that we're going to see the same problem with Meraki's back-end services. Most users (and certainly just about everyone in the general public) thinks that once you buy a wireless access point that it will continue to work indefinitely (or at least until the hardware fails). With Meraki, however, you're getting a package of hardware and software -- and you can't run a Meraki network without Meraki's proprietary back-end. So how much will the service cost at the end of your 3-year "free" period? I have no idea (though if you know, please let me know). [EDIT: As Meraki CEO, Sanjit Biswas, clarified on this blog (see comments), "the cost the hosted backend service is included for the lifetime of the device with the current line of products at $149/$199. We may decide to unbundle the pricing with future products, but it will be clear to the customer and not a hidden fee." So current hardware should remain free to use. And what happens if you've been a Meraki network over that 3-year periodand are now about to get a huge monthly charge? Probably you'll either have to pay whatever they cost or parts of your network will cease to work. I'm not sure that I would agree with Sanjit that this is not a hidden fee -- most Meraki customers are not aware of the possibility that future compatible hardware might carry additional fees.]

Hundreds of projects, organizations, and municipalities are rolling out Meraki-based networks, yet few seem to understand that they're buying a bundled service not just a piece of hardware. Over time, these initiatives will end up paying an unknown amount of money to Meraki just to keep their system running. It is, in fact, the ultimate bait-and-switch paradigm -- you think you have a one-time hardware cost, instead you get vendor lock-in, recurring charges, and path dependencies.

These and other reasons are why it remains so important to support and utilize truly open technologies. The simulacrums are getting better and better -- but inevitably you're getting a worse deal than you think.

I would say that a little bird told me; but, in fact, this has been developing for quite some time. New ownership of the Philadelphia wireless network will be announced today. From the community side of things, we're cautiously optimistic that the solution that's been reach will directly address local concerns and ensure the continuing viability of the project.

[UPDATE01] Looks like the rest of the media is finally catching on to the Philly resuscitation. Meanwhile, here's my recommendation for finding out more:

The Future of Philadelphia's Wireless Internet Initiative:
A Public Forum

When: Wednesday, June 18, 6:30 p.m.
Where: Tuttleman Learning Center, Room 105,
Corner of 13th St. and Montgomery Ave. Temple University

Panelists Include:

• Mark Rupp, Principle, Boathouse Communications
• Beth McConnell, Executive Director, Media and Democracy Coalition
• Karl Garcia, Technical Staff, Google's Wireless network, Mountainview, Calif.
• Greg Goldman, CEO of Wireless Philadelphia
• Phuong Ninh, Philadelphia Student Union's Youth Leadership Team
• Bill Green, City Councilman-At Large
• Invited, representative from the Nutter administration

[UPDATE02] From the Media Mobilizing Project in Philly:

Media Mobilizing Project Statement on Change of Ownership of Philly WiFi System

MMP believes that change in ownership is an important step in realizing a vision of a new Philadelphia where everyone has access to the Internet. We are excited to work with the new ownership group. Currently many residents wait two to three hours at local libraries to get on the Internet for 30 minutes. But they wait because they severely need the service. They need the Internet to apply for jobs, apply to college, get vital information about health and their communities. They need the Internet to have the full set of rights which come along with the information based society in which we live.

Consequently, MMP believes that new ownership is a vital step but not a silver bullet in solving the problem that at least 25% of the population lives in poverty, 30% do not own a computer and less then 50% of residents have access to the Web. Therefore, we call on the Mayor and city hall to keep digital inclusion at the top of their agenda. At the same time, we believe it is vital that community groups and the many neighborhoods and people who comprise the fabric of the city, must work and envision how to make the Philly WiFi network not only a technological reality but a social, political and economic resource which compels a more just city. For this reason MMP and Temple University are co-hosting a forum on the future of Philly WiFi Wednesday night at 6:30 in room 105 of Tuttleman Learning Center. The forum will include members of the new owenrship group, Councilman Bill Green and others.

Media Mobilizing Project is a local organization devoted to the use of the Internet and other media as an organizing tool in low-income communities around the city. Media Mobilizing Project works with groups to utilize the media and communications in organizing campaigns while training community members in basic video, audio, web and computer skills. MMP has worked with Wireless Philadelphia getting folks within our network online, while also helping people acquire the tools and skills to access the Web.
In recent months we have been working to inspire community engagement to help keep the Philly WiFi network alive.

Media Mobilizing Project
4134 Lancaster Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215.990.3702
mediamobilizing@gmail.com
www.mediamobilizing.org

Last year, New America Foundation released an in-depth report and analysis of the Wireless Philadelphia Project, "The Philadelphia Story: Learning from a Municipal Wireless Pioneer." We concluded that the private franchise model was suboptimal and that Philadelphia's solution was problematic in a number of ways. At the time, we received good press coverage and a helluvalot of blowback from certain constituencies (who continued to assert that everything was on track).

Now that we've made it to May, 2008, Wireless Philadelphia is on its last legs. While many of us are still working to salvage something from this mess, reading through the New America Foundation report, it's amazingly how eerily prescient it is. Ironically, the solution we proposed was exactly what has been on the table for the past couple months -- but, as with far too many innovative ideas, this one got mired in the muck of Philly politics and, perhaps, personal egos.

Sadly, the mainstream press continue to demonstrate a remarkable ignorance by tagging this failure as a failure of "municipal wireless" -- the reality is, the Philadelphia model is a corporate franchise granted to Earthlink -- much of the problem stems from the fact that the municipality has no control or ownership over the network and Earthlink has demonstrated no accountability to the local community. Conde Nast's Portfolio gets it completely wrong -- heading their story, "Another Municipal Wi-Fi Plan Dies" -- which is a particular shame since I've spoken with the article's author, Sam Gustin, previously and he knows better.

Computer World labels the Earthlink failure as, "another blow to the municipal Wi-Fi market", when a better understanding of the situation would dictate that it's a failure of the corporate franchise business model. SiliconValley.com rightfully points out that where Earthlink's wireless networks have been taken over by municipalities, they've continued to operate, while those that haven't (e.g., Philly and New Orleans) they're being shut down. Isn't the story, then, that where corporate franchises are converted into municipal networks, the networks continue to thrive?

The story's also being covered by PC World, Digital Trends, and a host of other news organizations.

My recommendation? Read The Philadelphia Story: Learning from a Municipal Wireless Pioneer, check out my recent article for GovTech's Digital Communities, Municipal Wireless Success Demands Public Involvement, and remain critical of the notion that the death of municipal wireless is nigh.

The Philadelphia saga is about to get a whole lot more interesting. Though I've been privy to a lot of the behind-the-scene negotiations, if you're looking for details, you'll have to look elsewhere. However, you won't have to wait long -- the Philadelphia Metro has already started covering things -- which means that someone's already spilling the beans. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News are going to be running stories tomorrow.

All in all, the proposed solution is a really good one for the residents of Philly; but yes, it's caught up on the demand for a $250,000 payment. Meanwhile, Wireless Philadelphia released this statement today...

Dear Friend of Wireless Philadelphia:

I am writing to provide you a brief update on the Wireless
Philadelphia Initiative.

Philadelphia's Wi-Fi network continues to operate in the roughly 80% of the City in which it has been deployed (see map ). Nothing in the ten-year Network Agreement

permits EarthLink to unilaterally impose deadlines for the network's transfer, turn off the network or remove network equipment.

It has been well publicized that EarthLink recently announced its intention to sell its Wi-Fi networks and exit the municipal wireless business. Wireless Philadelphia and the City of Philadelphia continue to work together to explore options for the network's future. In the meantime, we are committed to our core mission of serving Digital Inclusion customers with internet access, hardware, technical support and training.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Best regards,

Greg Goldman
CEO
Wireless Philadelphia
ggoldman@wirelessphiladelphia.org

I've been talking with folks down in North Carolina about innovative business models that will facilitate public private partnerships whereby municipalities work with non-profit organizations to deliver broadband services. As the Philly model continues to flail about (though I'm hopeful for some resolution in the near future on this), alternative systems are being implemented. Wally Bowen over at theMountain Area Information Network (MAIN) has been heading up the charge. A month or so ago I wrote to the Asheville City Council supporting the plan that MAIN was proposing. And I'm quite happy to see such a resounding endorsement for what is certain to become a remarkably interesting municipal wireless project.

Here's more:

Asheville, N.C. endorses new Wi-Fi business model

ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- A proposal to make Asheville a "Wi-Fi City" -- via city-wide, wireless Internet access -- won unanimous endorsement March 25 from the Asheville City Council.

The plan, put forth by the nonprofit Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN), would provide secure wireless coverage -- including mobile access -- throughout the city.

"I'm pleased that the City of Asheville has officially endorsed MAIN's 'Wi-Fi City' proposal" said Asheville Mayor Terry Bellamy. "This effort will not only help bridge the Digital Divide in our community. It also signals to the nation that Asheville has a 21st-century vision for an inclusive and sustainable Digital Economy. . . ."

Read the entire story: http://www.main.nc.us/wifi.

Alicia Mickelsen sent me Belair's press release on the Boston pilot wireless deployment. For everyone that's been wondering, "What's Boston been up to?" Here's the answer:

Today, Boston announces the completion of the city’s first wireless pilot. Equipment from BelAir Networks, the leading provider of mobile broadband mesh networks, is powering the next generation wireless broadband network in the Roxbury and Dorchester neighborhoods of Boston. The network is the result of the company’s partnership with openairboston.net, a private, non-profit corporation created to develop, implement and operate a network to provide wireless internet access throughout the City of Boston.

Since its soft-launch in late August, openairboston.net estimates that the network has already had over 3,000 unique users, with average session length of 79 minutes per user. The network now makes it possible for approximately 8,000 households within the pilot area access to the Internet for as little as $9.95 a month.

I have included the press releases on the network below, from BelAir Networks and from the city of Boston. If you would like to learn more about the network, I would be happy to put you in touch with a BelAir Networks executive.

Thank you,

Alicia

Alicia Mickelsen
Breakaway Communications for BelAir Networks
156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 410, New York, NY 10010
(212) 616-6002 | amick@breakawaycom.com

Read more...

An article on municipal wireless I recently wrote for GovTech's Digital Communities Magazine on the myth that municipal wireless has been failing just came out. If you're looking for more background behind my recent statements in the New York Times, then this is certainly worth a read:

Municipal Wireless Success Demands Public Involvement, Experts Say

Most media have it wrong. Municipal wireless networks across the United States didn't stumble in 2007 - high-profile cities where deals fell apart, such as Chicago, San Francisco and Houston, were not going to finance, own or operate their respective networks. These weren't municipal networks at all. The business model that faltered in 2007 was the "private corporate franchise" model based on the deal that Philadelphia and EarthLink agreed to in 2006. It was, in fact, the free market that failed last year - not governments in their traditional role as the builders and maintainers of critical infrastructure.

Read more...

In December 2007, the New America Foundation released an in-depth report and analysis of the Philadelphia Wireless project. This New America Foundation report focused on productive interventions and potential opportunities for community organizers and decision-makers, but was met with hostility by Wireless Philadelphia and Civitium.

Now, three months after the report's release, many of the concerns first systematically documented in the report (but raised often by the local Philadelphia community over a several year period) are beginning to grow so much worse that even the best efforts being brought to bare to obfuscate the problems are coming undone.

Joshua Breitbart put it this way in his recent blog posting:

It is now common knowledge that EarthLink has failed to live up to its agreement to build a citywide wireless network for the people of Philadelphia. Fortunately, the Network Agreement gives Wireless Philadelphia various mechanisms to hold the Atlanta-based corporation accountable. For example, WP can declare a “Dark Day” for the system if there is significant outage and compel EarthLink to remedy the situation. Yet WP has not exercised any of these provisions, even though these are clearly dark days for Wireless Philadelphia.

In December, Philadelphia Chief Information Officer Terry Phillis and Wireless Philadelphia Chief Executive Officer went before City Council and assured the members that EarthLink was still hard at work building out the wireless network throughout the city. They promised EarthLink would resolve all of its subscribers’ problems. It is now clear the information they provided was false.

The problem in Philadelphia is that they're in desperate need of leadership in an area where people have been so focused on the potential political minefield that they've been unwilling to make the substantial changes necessary to fix things. As more information begins to come out about the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tax payer dollars that were spent to subsidize Earthlink's network, the question that begs asking is, "What return on investment did the local community get for their funding?"

Municipal networks in places like St. Cloud, FL and Chaska, MN work because the local community has substantial control over the network. In Philadelphia, this control was ceded to private interests and we're looking at the repercussions of this decision. Hopefully, folks will get things turned around in Philly, but that may only happen with strong new leadership.

You can tune into a live broadcast of The Future of Municipal Wireless streaming live from the New America Foundation here in Washington, DC. We will also be using a live web chat for remote viewers so that you will be able to ask questions and comment on the proceedings.

Discussion will focus on alternative municipal wireless business models that have proven successful (both in the US and overseas) in delivering affordable (often free) broadband to their local communities. There's a lot to be learned from the panel of experts -- participants include:

The Honorable Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Vice Chairman, Subcommitee on Telecommunications, House Commerce Committee
U.S. House of Representatives

Joshua Breitbart
Principal and Co-Founder
Ethos Wireless

Jonathan Baltuch
President
MRI

Aaron Kaplan
Director
FunkFeuer (Austria)

Jon Peha
Associate Director of the Center for Wireless and Broadband Networking
Carnegie-Mellon University

Richard MacKinnon
Founder and President
Austin Wireless City Project

Sascha D. Meinrath
Research Director, Wireless Future Program
New America Foundation