Free City Wi-Fi in Norwich (UK)

Norwich is almost 1-month into their 18month pilot of free city wi-fi.  They’re using a mesh, and have 256kbps speeds for “the public” and 1Mbps speeds for public sector workers.   Like Toronto’s (Hydro), the mesh nodes are affixed to city lampposts to create seamless coverage.  Unlike Toronto, users do not need a cellphone to receive a text message that enables them to log into the network.  In Norwich, people access the wi-fi simply by agreeing to terms and conditions on a portal page that their web browser will point towards when a connection is made between a device and the network. This is exactly the approach taken by community wireless networking (CWN) groups all over the world.  Like these CWNs, Norwich has had no problems so far with security or other “abuses”.

They’re also taking an experimental approach to it, opening it up for public use to see what economic and cultural applications and functionality emerge from its implementation. 

Designed not to compete with commercial hotspot provision, the network has two speeds – 256Kbps for the public and 1Mbps for public sector workers – which are slower than typical broadband speeds found in the home.

A full review of the service, and some insightful comments and recommendations are offered by Peter Cochrane, British Telecom’s former Chief Technologist.

Esme Vos over at Muniwireless has also posted about this, identifying Telabria and Synetrix as the main technological partners in the project.

(full article from BBC) 

Continue reading →

(From yesterday’s Globe and Mail)

Following Philadelphia and Washington D.C., Boston appears poised to take the non-profit route to providing “civic bandwidth”.

It’s a brief article, but highlights how more and more cities seem to be recognizing that relying on private (profit-oriented) providers may be counterproductive to  genuinely addressing “digital divide” issues.

If approved, this ($20million project) would be a major public policy initiative, and there are myriad ways this could falter, if appropriate discussions and plans are not put into place.

Richard O’Bryant from the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University has emphasized that there are some key issues that must be considered, lest Boston (or any other city considering public Wi-Fi) end up in a “we built it but noone came” scenario.

According to O’Bryant, these issues (and recommendations for addressing them) include:

1) policy makers should refrain from the temptation of the city becoming an Internet or quasi-Internet service provider.  The service should be attached to institutions and entities that will not be so readily subject to changes in leadership and leadership ideologies and priorities.

2) build the system as a public and private partnership.  However, the process should be a bottom-up instead of top-down approach. In particular, identify community level individuals and groups to develop specific community needs assessments and gauge, (i.e. through polling/surveys), what the expected utilization rates might be.

3) policy makers should also be prepared to inform and train residents, specifically those technologically challenged, on how to make meaningful use of their new found wireless Internet service.

O’Bryant’s recommendations are right on, and are good starting points for any plan of this nature…

 (Full Article from G+M…) Continue reading →

Wireless infrastructure and the future of cities seems to be a hot topic today…

The Globe and Mail has an interesting article today that ties into my earlier post about MuniWireless and the Future of Cities. In tech columnist Jack Kapica’s, “Toronto aims to be high-tech hub“, we’re given a brief overview of the new “Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Strategy for the Toronto Region”.

Kapica summarizes,

“The report also calls for an internationally competitive public-access wireless Internet service to be put in place. It has a goal of attracting at least five new ICT multinational companies to the region, and increasing by 10 per cent the annual rate of formation of new companies.

The underlying rationale for this layer of infrastructure is traceable to the Floridian perspective on cities and their economies, that focuses on what Creative Economies (driven by creative class workers), need to accomplish in order to thrive.
That is, the provision of a public access wireless internet service is desirable as part of a general strategy of economic, cultural, and social development.

“the city [of Toronto] has all the right elements for a dynamic tech sector: universities, diversity, a Bohemian culture and a good ICT base in telecom infrastructure.”

Of course, the report doesn’t go as far as recommending free public WiFi, but it’s heartening to see that there are some people at the City finally becoming wise to the need for public WiFi in Toronto!

An excellent post from Anthony Townsend over at Institute for the Future (IFTF), via Esme Vos. Titled, “Ad-Supported Municipal Wireless Networks and the Future of Cities: Three Issues Missing From the Current Debate”. In it, Anthony underlines how the discussion surrounding municipal wireless networks does not address 3 important issues:

• Guaranteeing citizens’ role as content providers
• Finding a balance for location privacy
• Enabling the Internet of Things

Notably, he suggests

“in order to guarantee that municipal wireless networks willl enhance citizen’s roles as content providers, cities should:

• Require that wireless franchisees provide significant community access to wireless captive portal pages and splash pages. Ownership, control and access to this resource can be organized in any number of ways – having local students document and chronicle local events and other open content authoring models. “

This “community content” is something that has been of particular interest to volunteers here. Location-specific art, storytelling, and music is something a lot of people are keen on here, and as our network grows, I’m excited to see how and who takes this up!

Meanwhile, developers at Ile Sans Fils are busy leading the push to hone this functionality in Wifidog, and I’m looking forward to seeing what evolves.

I’m really happy to hear/read these thoughts from Anthony. The article is thoughtful and will hopefully provoke some wider discussion around some of the cultural and civic implications of Muni-Wireless (and community wireless).

As he emphasizes,

“[there are] long-term consequences of design and implementation decisions. While the working life of today’s Wi-Fi technologies may only be five to ten years, the infrastructure and governance models put in place today are likely to shape a whole generation’s worth of urban wireless networks. If cities fail to think ahead, they may find it more challenging to leverage wireless infrastructure for digital inclusion, economic development and public safety in the future.”

“District to Seek Wireless Internet that Aids Poor”
Washington Post,
Arshad Mohammed,
Thursday, March 9, 2006

The D.C. government is preparing to ask companies to bid on building a wireless Internet system through much of the city, including free service for low-income residents.

But unlike other municipalities such as Philadelphia and San Francisco that have commissioned such networks city-wide, the District plans to give its contract to the company that goes furthest in serving low-income residents with free Web access and even free computers and training.

This is a valuable idea that the City of Toronto should be paying more attention to. In all the discussions surrounding the potential impact and applications of Toronto Hydro Telecom’s proposed wireless mesh architecture, there has been far too little conversation about how the new network can be used to reach underserved communities and small businesses.

D.C.’s Mayor Williams describes the rationale for his unique approach to municipal wireless:

“Access to technology is like access to books: it’s an important medium of communication and learning and opportunity,” Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said yesterday in an interview. “Other cities are doing it and I want our city doing it too.”

Williams said he was not worried that some areas might get left out. “I think there is sufficient market incentive to serve the other areas of the city. The problem is there isn’t sufficient market incentive to serve the lowest-income parts of our city, and that’s what I am trying to do here.”

The winning company would get an exclusive, eight-year franchise to attach wireless devices to District-owned street lights and buildings. This of course, is a key difference between DC and Toronto, since Toronto Hydro purchased Toronto’s street light system for $60 million last year, and as an independent operator, doesn’t require City approval to run its network.

The approach taken by D.C.’s mayor underlines the potential of a city-wide mesh. That is, leveraging the lower-cost of wireless networking technology to meet the needs of underserved individuals, communities, and small businesses. The D.C. plan demonstrates foresight, and while not entirely replicable in Toronto, is an admirable example of innovative leadership.

The debate continues to swirl around Toronto Hydro’s Tuesday, March 7 announcement. One of the most prominent and obvious elements of the discussion revolves around how Toronto Hydo Telecom’s plan will change the consumer/enterprise broadband market. In an article by Mark Evans, the telco’s weigh in with their predictable opposition:

Mike Lee, chief strategy officer with Rogers Communications Inc., said he cannot understand why Toronto Hydro, which is owned by the cash-strapped city of Toronto, wants to enter the Internet access business, because it can be expensive to operate and maintain.

We see the other side of the argument in an ITWorldCanada article, where Mark Els emphasizes, “the proposed network poses an obvious and very serious threat to traditional telcos such as Bell, Telus and Rogers because the service will be much more than consumer-grade.”

Moreover, the company is not new to offering secure, enterprise-class Internet connectivity. Among its customers are four of Canada’s biggest banks, who use Toronto Hydro Telecom’s Gigabit Ethernet fibre optic network to transfer data between their Toronto sites.

Lawrence Surtees, vice-president and principal analyst, communications research at IDC Canada Ltd. is also quoted in Els’ article. He is supportive of the Toronto Hydro’s entry into the market, and assesses, “ubiquitous coverage combined with high bandwidth makes Toronto Hydro Telecom’s offering a strong, viable alternative to the cellular carriers.”

Surtees also muses, “It starts to make sense why incumbent phone companies such as Verizon in San Francisco and SBC in Philadelphia have their knickers in a knot about comparable muni-services down there; and why I think Bell, Telus, Rogers are going to be possibly freaking out over this.”

Surtees’ overview of the Toronto Hydro Plan, “Toronto Hydro Lights Up GTA with WiFi Blanket” is also worth checking out. Among other things, it lists Canadian municipalities already offering WiFi access services. They are: Fredericton, Calgary, Whistler/Kamloops, Hamilton, Sault Saint Marie, and Ottawa.

Apologies for regurgitating a press release, not terribly good blog style. But hopefully this will be of interest to some.

Wireless Toronto welcomes news of Toronto Hydro WiFi Plan, hopes for Public Consultation

TORONTO, March 8 – (http://wirelesstoronto.ca/blog/)

Local community group Wireless Toronto has expressed a positive response to yesterday’s Toronto Hydro announcement.

The group sees Toronto Hydro Telecom’s plan to blanket Toronto’s downtown core with WiFi as an ambitious one with far-reaching consequences. Bearing close resemblance to municipal wireless initiatives in Philadelphia and San Francisco, Toronto Hydro’s plan expands the local internet access market. Continue reading →

Here’s a slightly trimmed and webified version of the map for the coverage of the proposed Toronto Hydro WiFi network. The original is available as a PDF.

Toronto Hydro has taken a smart approach to building the network as an independent commercial venture, because it makes it more difficult for Bell/Rogers/Telus to complain about unfair competition. Comparable municipal wireless initiatives in the US have been heavily bogged down by lobbying and lawsuits from incumbent telcos.

But the downside of this approach is that Toronto’s citizen’s needs are much less likely to be addressed, because city council may not have any influence over the project.

Toronto Hydro has made no mention (and maybe never will) of several issues of importance to Torontonians:
– the need of underserved communities and small business
– public consultation process
– a commitment to permanent free access in public spaces
– the timeline and priority for expansion of the network beyond the downtown core