Municipal broadband

Municipal broadband deployments are broadband Internet access services provided by local governments, either fully or partially. Common connection technologies include: unlicensed wireless (Wi-Fi, wireless mesh network), licensed wireless (such as WiMAX), and Fiber-optic. Although many cities previously deployed Wi-Fi based solutions, municipal fiber-to-the-home networks are becoming more prominent because of the increased demand for modern video and audio applications which are increasing bandwidth requirements by an order of magnitude every two years.

How It Works

Rather than using the sometimes unreliable hub and spoke model of distribution, most municipal broadband networks use mesh networking. A series of radio transmitters throughout a city, with each transmitter connected to at least two other transmitters, relay radio signals through the whole city. This allows for a reliable connection for users. Mesh networks are also faster to build and less expensive to run than the hub and spoke model.

Two basic models for funding Wi-Fi networks have emerged. A city will either use tax money to pay for the service or find an outside company to provide the service with the understanding that the company will have control of the network in exchange for build-out and maintenance.

In Stockholm, Stokab provides network infrastructure; the city installed dark fiber and several hundred service providers lit the fiber and provided one service or another. Reggefiber in the Netherlands fulfils a similar role. The Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency provides service at one network layer higher, creating a lit fiber network, the capacity of which it is wholesaling to four service providers that provide retail service in the market. A final model is to provide all layers of service, such as Chaska, Minnesota where the city has built and is operating a Wi-Fi Internet network and is providing email and web hosting applications. These different models involve different public-private partnership arrangements, and different levels of opportunity for private sector competition.

A few US states have banned municipal broadband, some states have restricted it, and other states have regulated it (requiring prudent business plans and studies). As of 2007, three bills are pending before the US Congress that touch on the issue; one would affirm municipal broadband, one would restrict it, and one would prohibit it.

Some incumbent telecommunications and cable companies complain that government competition is unfair while others have viewed it as an opportunity to expand their market. Other organizations such as Free Press, the Media Access Project, and the ACLU have come out in favor of municipal broadband.

The reconstruction of New Orleans was the impetus to build a metro-scale wireless broadband network to provide free public Internet service, and it also provided needed communications for government and emergency services. Bell South threatened the city with legal action if the New Orleans municipal network were continued to be run by the city. Consequently, the network was bought by an outside company.

Pros of Municipal Broadband

Municipal broadband offers many advantages to consumers and to the economy. First, it often provides high speed internet access for free or at least cheaper than other current broadband service providers. Different cities adopt different models to fit their needs. St. Cloud, Florida's municipal broadband network offers free access to everyone. Philadelphia, PA, also offers free access to everyone.

Municipal broadband networks are intended to improve worker productivity by giving city officials (such as police officers and firefighters) remote access to information. Police officers can access security cameras, blueprints, criminal records and other necessary information. Networks can let officers show witnesses mug shots or “virtual lineups” at the scene of a crime, instead of at a police station. The Department of Homeland Security provides funding for cities that use municipal networks for these applications (Wilson).

It is hoped that municipal broadband networks will make cities more attractive to businesses, especially desirable high-tech and research companies, which are dependent on communication. Communication also enables small and home-based businesses to participate in international and regional commerce. Finally, it allows companies to recruit new employees without relocating them, for municipal broadband enables the workers to telecommute (Ellison).

The Federal Communications Commission, in the year 2000, endorsed municipal broadband as a "best practice" for bringing broadband to under served communities.

The FCC also addressed the issue when confronted with the question of whether a municipality was an "entity" under the Telecommunications Act. The Telecommunications Act states "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 USC 253(a). The legal question presented was whether a state could prevent a municipality (its own subsidiary) from entering the telecommunication market. In the case Missouri Municipal League v. Nixon, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that in fact a municipality was not an entity under the Telecommunications Act and that a state could determine what authority its own subordinate jurisdictions had.

Government, it is argued, can take a longer view and write off the investment over a longer period of time. Private companies, especially publicly traded ones, have to show profitability in a very short period. In many ways, government might be the best entity to create a broadband network—as infrastructure—and allow private companies to run it and deliver services (IPTV, telephony, Internet access) over it.

By setting up a network as infrastructure and remaining a passive owner, allowing private companies to run the network and deliver services over it, government might create a competitive environment where the network owner is not also the one who determines which services consumers can receive. "Structural separation or "functional separation" is the term often used for broadband as infrastructure that is OPEN to all service providers. Governments, which can take a longer view than publicly traded companies such as telephone companies, can write off these investments over a longer period of time. They may be driven by the desire to lay down critical broadband infrastructure that serves a larger constituency: individuals, small businesses, schools, government entities and service providers.

Cons of Municipal Broadband

Municipal networks vs. Private Companies

The harshest critics of municipal networks are the incumbent telecom operators and cable companies. They object that the government is an unfair competitor, given its expansive resources, and they will lose customers.

In 2007, private companies like EarthLink, which had committed to building networks in partnership with local governments, pulled back because the costs of deployment were significantly higher than expected and the return on investment was uncertain. A number of providers continued to build municipal networks although these projects nearly always had the local government as an anchor tenant. Certain municipalities are going ahead with deployments and paying for them directly because they use it for municipal purposes such as automated meter reading, public safety, and traffic management.

Critics of municipal networks claim that government wifi hampers innovation, a classic argument against governmental services. Some models of municipal broadband access attempt to avoid this problem; in the Stokab model only the base infrastructure, the dark fiber, is laid down by the government.

Even though municipal networks offer low cost internet access, some private companies are still able to offer wireless internet at a lower cost than the government. Because of this, some people choose to not use the government sponsored municipal network.

Time factor

Critics of municipal broadband do not want cities to set up networks because over time the networks could become outdated. .

Government Role in Economics

When the government sets up a municipal network, it can lead to huge distortions of the market. If a city government gives a private company exclusive rights to set up a municipal network, the private company can gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace. This can lead to monopolies, and other market distortions. Municipal wireless is an immature marketplace, and some critics argue that the government does not belong in such a risky enterprise. Also, municipal networks often cost more than expected, which can lead to strain on an already tight tax budget.

Luxury vs. Necessity

Debate about whether or not cities should set up municipal networks brings up the question: Is the internet a luxury or a necessity? Proponents of municipal networks tend to believe that because of technology's huge impact on society, the internet can no longer be considered a luxury. People with this view suggest that everyone should have affordable or free access to the internet so as to bridge the "digital divide" between those who have access and those who do not. Economic and sociological studies suggest that using the internet boosts an individual's earnings significantly. Opponents tend to characterize the internet as a luxury, and maintain that tax money should be invested in more necessary enterprises. This view was exemplified by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell's observation that saying there is a digital divide is like saying there is a Mercedes divide, in that computers and internet connections are luxury items that many desire but few can afford.

Current Status of Municipal Wireless Networks

See:Cities with Municipal Wireless Networks

See also

• Switched mesh
• Wireless community network
• Municipal wireless network

External links

• March 2009 List of cities with WiFi projects (MuniWireless)
• CNET Map of Municipal Broadband networks in the United States
• Cybertelecom: Municipal Broadband
• Panel discussion with Google about their project for San Francisco
• MuniWireless.com: the portal for the latest news and information about municipal wireless broadband projects around the world with a comprehensive summary of projects, market research reports, and conferences; set up by Esme Vos in 2003, updated list of US cities and counties with wireless networks
• W2i.com: a comprehensive best practices sharing portal that address all aspects of municipal wireless deployments including a searchable database of municipal deployments worldwide, videos, audios, expert zones addressing various aspects of deploying municipal wireless networks, expert blogs, daily headlines
• [1]
• [2]
• CBC Newsl Earthlink shutting down Philadelphia Wi-Fi