Plans to cover huge areas with wireless internet access are gathering
pace. And, finds Sean Dodson, companies that stand to lose are taking
the threat seriously.
Thursday March 3, 2005
Once the preserve of first-class business lounges, the mobile internet
is fast becoming a reality. Last month, Southern Trains announced it
was rolling out Wi-Fi access along its London to Brighton route. For
about the cost of a bacon sandwich, commuters will soon be able enjoy
internet access as they race across the Ouse viaduct. Not to be
outdone, service station operator Moto said it was installing Wi-Fi
hotspots at 43 of its motorway locations and you will even be able to
check email at 35,000 feet: Boeing is installing Wi-Fi access points
in its new fleet of long-haul aircraft.
Wi-Fi, short for wireless fidelity, is the branding given to
interoperability-tested products based on IEEE 802.11, an industry
standard that allows data to be sent over the radio spectrum rather
than through a cable or phone line. Now a standard feature on all but
the cheapest laptops, the protocol is coming pre-packaged in a variety
of electronic devices including mobile phones, palmtop computers and
even the latest Nintendo games console.
Until now, only a patchy blanket of disparate wireless networks has
allowed these devices to connect to the internet and it has been
difficult for users to roam between those networks since most cover
only small geographical areas.
But that is changing. Philadelphia is steaming ahead with an ambition
to become the world's most wired - or unwired - city, with a $10m plan
to bathe 135 square miles with wireless coverage - potentially
accessible by 1.5m residents. Over the next 18 months, more than 4,000
wireless antennae will be attached to the city's lampposts, trans
mitting free internet access into the city's parks and public
places. But, more controversially, Philadelphia's residents and
businesses will also be tempted with wireless broadband for about the
cost of a dial-up connection. According to the mayor, John F Street,
Philadelphia is "singularly obsessed" with bringing the benefits of
high-speed internet access "anywhere, anytime, to anyone that needs
Cities as diverse as New York, Taipei, Calgary and Adelaide are
competing to launch similar "muni nets". Smaller scale networks have
been deployed on corporate and university campuses and, more recently,
in large shopping areas, such as a 42-square block section of downtown
St Louis, Missouri. Smaller US cities, such as Salem and Austin,
offer city-wide wireless access, while in Europe, the genteel Dutch
city of Leiden offers a foretaste of the wireless city.
The UK picture is more parochial, though no less passionate. A
patchwork of smaller wireless networks, often funded by local
councils, is beginning to blossom. Yesterday, Access to Broadband, a
pressure group partially funded by the government, reported to the
Department for Trade and Industry that there were at least 550 smaller
scale wireless networks operating in towns and villages across the
UK. Nearly 90% employ wireless networking. These tiny, cooperative
projects are in remote corners, but what they have in common with
Philadelphia is that they have been established in the wake of the
market's failure to deliver affordable high-speed internet connections
to everyone who needs it. The rural outposts going wireless are those
that feel they are poorly served by BT.
There are also moves to furnish London with city-wide wireless
networks. Lewisham council is building a wireless network in south
London, while the closest Britain has to wireless Philadelphia is a
three-mile ribbon in central Bristol.
What unites these groups is the belief that cheap wireless access has
the power to even out the inequalities inherent in the network
society. But not everyone is convinced by such egalitarianism. In
Philadelphia, critics have argued that local government-run networks
will result in poor service and be a waste of taxpayers' money. Far
from being an anti-poverty weapon, say dissenters, municipal networks
are more likely to be aimed at attracting hi-tech businesses. As Scott
Wallsten wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer last week: "Does anyone
really believe that impoverished families are going to run to the
store and plunk down more than $500 on a computer just because they
can suddenly save a few bucks a month on internet access?"
The mayor's office responded swiftly, saying its pilot projects had
engaged with low-income groups, citing the People's Emergency Centre
(PEC), a homeless shelter in beleaguered west Philly, as an indication
of how wireless networks can reach the poorest. Three years ago, PEC
created a small wireless network for the surrounding area (average
annual family income below $20,000) and offered to share its leased
internet line with local residents for $5 per month - roughly a
quarter of the commercial rate.
The network -- which remains popular -- was supported by courses,
whose successful students could buy a refurbished computer with a
wireless card for $120.
So far, so good. But city hall soon ran into serious problems that
could stifle the wireless dreams of municipalities across the
world. US cable companies, which see citizen-funded networks as a
threat to their commercial fiefdoms, backed a bill that effectively
outlawed municipal wireless in the state of Pennsylvania. In December,
the state passed a bill forbidding any municipality in the state from
running an "information network". Only a last-minute deal with
Verizon, the state's de facto monopoly provider of broadband, saved
Philadelphia's vision. Verizon promised to allow the city's network,
but at the expense of the rest of the state. At least 15 US states are
considering similar telco-backed bills to ban municipal networks.
To Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer, municipal
wireless is no mere luxury. Neff, a veteran public servant, sees
municipal networks as a potential leveller in a city where 70% of
state school children receive free school meals. "We have a vibrant
downtown," she says, "but we need to make sure all our neighbourhoods
can compete in the knowledge economy.
"We are not using taxpayers' dollars to build the network," she
adds. "We will finance it through taxable bonds or bank financing."
Moreover, Neff believes the network will be cost neutral, meaning that
the start-up costs will be offset by a reduction in the cost of civic
services. "We need outdoor access for our field operations, whether
that's building inspectors, health and social workers or public
safety. Our inspectors need access to engineering diagrams in the
field if there's a water main break," she explains. "DSL or cable
doesn't meet our needs."
Chris Clark, chief executive for BT Wireless Broadband, said the UK's
biggest broadband supplier would not be taking the same approach as
Verizon. "The community wireless projects, which started in an
environment of concern about rural service, are evolving into
providing all sorts of innovative services," he says. "It would be a
pity to see such innovation stifled. More recently, a number of
metropolitan wireless projects have been in the pipeline. BT is fully
supportive of these initiatives."
While such sentiments will be welcomed by broadband campaigners, some
wish to go further and establish truly free wireless networks. If
municipal wireless represents a leveller approach to the network
society, then the "free networkers" represents its diggers. The idea
of a free, wireless network to "act as a direct counter strategy to
top-down, telecom-provided monopoly networking", was born in Southwark
nearly five years ago.
Julian Priest, then a web designer, posited the idea that the wireless
protocol could be used on a city-wide scale. His company wanted to
share its spare internet bandwidth with Backspace, a community of
digital artists working over the road. However, it is illegal to
stretch an overhead cable across a street. Priest and James Stevens,
of Backspace, solved the problem by connecting the buildings with
wireless technology. The realisation that the network could be
extended followed quickly.
The pair's idea to float a "data cloud" over London inspired a
generation of free networkers to take to the roofs armed with
antenna. Ad hoc free networks have since been established across the
world, as far away as Indonesia, Nepal and Tanzania. Priest is
lobbying Ofcom - the industry regulator -- to establish a "spectrum
commons" that would set aside certain frequency bands for public
use. 802.11 has grown out of the thin sliver of the spectrum given to
public use, "but it has to share that space with everything else,"
says Priest. "It's become an incredibly noisy and chaotic channel and
we need more space."
Free networkers, like Priest, believe that the transit of data through
the air should be free. Not just in terms of cost but in terms of
content. "People need to take responsibility for their own network,"
says Pete Gomes, of Wireless London, a pressure group established in
January to promote free networks in the capital.
"Because of the scale of London, the possibility of creating a unified
wireless system from grass roots activity is complex. We are in a
position where we are embedding infrastructure for the future and if
London doesn't realise that, we could easily be left behind."
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams, The
Restaurant at the End of the Universe
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, the Guardian Newspaper Group.
For more information go to: