744Team1

Introduction
Purpose of section: Briefly introduce the top of our paper utizlizing the 5 W's & H.

In this paper, we examine the "state of the technology" of citywide wireless networks. We will give an overview of the different technologies that can be used to create and deploy citywide wireless, and discuss the various business models that can be adopted to implement such a network. Various benefits to citywide wireless networks are examined, as well as several barriers to their success. Two case studies are presented to highlight a success story and a failed attempt to implement a citywide wireless network, and the current state of citywide wireless in Milwaukee is discussed as well.

Before discussing the various technologies that exist, it will be helpful to define a few terms used throughout this paper.

Wi-Fi - Does not mean wireless-fidelity, just catchier than "802.11 network" (citation needed)

Citywide Wireless (WHAT)
Purpose of Section: WHAT is citywide wireless.

There is an important difference between citywide and municipal wireless. "The former could be backed and run by the government, but could also be installed, operated and owned by a third-party provider. The latter is specifically the case where the network is run by the government, and is installed using taxpayer funds." Wi-FiPlanet.com, 3/11/2007 5:28pm Municipal wireless is a type of citywide wireless network, but not all citywide wireless networks can rightly be called municipal wireless. To further complicate matters, some citywide wireless projects encompass only a small portion of a city, and the term public wireless is also bandied about. We will avoid the term public because of its connotation of taxpayer funding. The scope of this paper is citywide wireless, whether it be municipal, entirely private, or some sort of public/private partnership, and whether it actually be city-wide, or merely encompass a city's downtown area.

Business Case for Citywide Wireless (WHY)
Purpose of Section: Why are cities wanting to implement citywide wireless? List Of Sources:
 * Connecting the Public: The Truth About Municipal Broadband

There are a growing number of successful projects. City Services improvement: New revenue stream (charging tourists and visiting business people) Economic stimulation
 * Public Safety Applications
 * Automated meter readings (gas, electricity, etc.)
 * Automated city vehicle location
 * Increased global competitiveness of local businesses, especially smaller ones.
 * Facilitates easier and cheaper Internet access for students and low income people
 * Perceived increase in the number of telecommuters, including people who work at home and (most important) people who work elsewhere while continuing to live in the city
 * Municipal networks provide the competition necessary to keep rates low and quality of service high.
 * Today, many communities in the United States have only a single provider or a duopoly consisting of a telecommunication company and a cable company.
 * It is common for such communities to have higher service rates and lower service quality. Moreover, in this case incumbent cable and/or telecommunication companies are usually trying to prevent competitors from entering the local market.
 * Municipal systems, on the other hand, do not have such an incentive. Therefore, municipal wireless can protect local consumers from the unfavorable practices exercised by monopolies and increase competition in the telecommunication market.

Lower cost in comparison to wired technologies Poor prospects for incumbent provider(s) to meet community needs the provision of communications services is the logical extensions of a century old municipal utility mandate Municipal systems do not “crowd out” private providers any more than the New York City Subway “crowds out” private taxi cabs and car services. To the contrary, studies and factual evidence show that where municipal systems take on the expensive task of building network infrastructure, the number of private providers increases.
 * Broadband becomes increasingly important for unprofitable areas including welfare, education and healthcare, which are mostly ignored by private companies
 * Economic constraints (investments, buy-outs, bankruptcies, mergers, and defaults)
 * Inadequate broadband offerings (speed & availability)
 * Inadequate customer service
 * Different orientation to local needs (profit not public service)

According to a recent study, the United States has dropped to 16th in the percentage of citizens with access to broadband, trailing South Korea, Canada, Israel, and Japan, among others. There is consensus across the political spectrum that we need to go wireless—and fast. (http://www.slate.com/id/2128632/)

Additional Reference if needed: http://www.belairnetworks.com/resources/pdfs/Muni%5FNetworks%5FBDMA00020%2DA04%2Epdf

Market Players / Forces (WHO)
Purpose of Section: Identify the players, their views, and present conclusive findings.

The Players
Cities, Citywide wireless vendors, incombant telco's, public/business, government.

Private enterprise resistance
Anti-competitive Legislation and Misinformation Campaign Bells and cable companies are lobbying hard to keep government out of the race - the message: Local governments should not compete against private industries, which have spent billions of dollars on infrastructure to serve residents and on city taxes.

Stop the ban of Muni-Wireless networks in Texas

Legal Issues

 * Telecommunications Act of 1996
 * Most states do not have legal barriers
 * Missouri Case
 * FCC ruling (“any entity” does not include state political subdivisions
 * Appeal Court unanimously reversed FCC ruling
 * Supreme court reversed Appeal Court
 * Public entities need state/local authority for each activity
 * Florida
 * Gov. Jeb Bush signd a law that prevents municpalities from offering broadband if there are competing private services
 * Nevada
 * bans most cities and counties from offering telecommunications services
 * Texas
 * bans all cities/counties from offereing telecommunications services
 * Verizon is a big player, using lobbyists to help draft anti-wireless statutes
 * Other legislation
 * Pete Sessions, R-Texas "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2726:)
 * prohibits state and local governments from offering telecommunications services unless the area wasn't being served by a private company
 * Pete Sessions has between $500k-$1million in SBC stock options (http://www.slate.com/id/2128632/)
 * Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1504:)
 * Community Broadband Act of 2005 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1294:)

Other
If a city owns the network, it has an unfair advantage against private businesses. This could cause a decline in competition and give the city a monopoly. Internet access is a luxury rather than a necessity, so public funds should not be used to provide it. There is no evidence showing municipal investments in broadband lead to faster economic growth or higher personal incomes. Potential for Government censorship Potential loss of Privacy Broadband services sufficient to meet the needs of residents and business are now available to nearly every residence and business in the U.S., including previously under-served areas There is the potential for financial waste since municipalities can cross-subsidize their services and then claim that the economic shortfalls are simply part of the charge to offer social services for which there is a lesser or negative financial return

Possible Additional Sources: Think Tank Trashes Municipal-Run Wireless Taking Sides for the Municipal Wireless Showdown

Business models (public/private partnerships, etc.)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061229-8517.html

Publicly funded Utility
Publicly funded "municipal" networks are funded completely by taxpayer dollars. The idea from the city's standpoint is to offer this service at a fee to the general public to recoup costs, as well as to earn additional monies for future projects and expansions.

Supporters of the Publicly funded networks include the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) http://www.ilsr.org/.

The ILSR makes the following claims: 1. High-speed information networks are essential public infrastructure. 2. Public ownership ensures competition. 3. Publicly owned networks can generate significant revenue. 4. Public ownership can ensure universal access. 5. Public ownership can ensure non-discriminatory networks.

802.11 Networking standards
Wireless LAN standard, using unlicensed 2.4 and 5GHz spectrum Faster than cable modem (up to 11 Mbps) Mobility, public safety, community/business development Range limited: 50' to 200' (more with congnitive radios, or if directed, or fewer structures, etc.)

802.16 (WiMax)
Wireless "MAN" standard Targeted average bandwidth: 70Mbps, peak to 268Mbps Standards not quite ripe--current deployments are "pre-WiMAX" Competes with WCDMA technology (informationweek 4/2/07 newsfilter article)

Commercial products on the market
This article I found provides some product details. 


 * BelAir Wireless Mesh Network
 * Earthlink Municipal Networks
 * Winning Municipal Business
 * Tropos MetroMesh Architecture
 * Nortell Wireless Mesh Network
 * Cisco Outdoor Wireless
 * Motorola Canopy

Maintenance and operations

 * Should service be free or not?
 * If it's free there is no need to worry about managing an "Account/Billing" management system but then service must be paid for using municipality general revenues
 * Make service for-pay, and turn operations over to an ISP like EarthLink or AT&T. The ISP will handling account and billing maintenance, and in return for exclusive access to a population they can provide low-cost service to all citizens

Coverage problems for Wi-Fi
Wireless has problems penetrating buildings. Source

Past failures due to lack of interest or faulty equipment - too risky The equipment itself will one day be obsolete and need replacement.

Analysis of past implentations (WHO, WHERE, WHEN, HOW Aggregation)
Purpose of Section: This section should aggregate the successes and failures use this information to identify criteria of a successful / failed project. What lead to successful implementations? Why did the failures fail?

Current Implementations and Initiatives US Map of Municipal Wireless Networks

Milwaukee
Purpose: Identify the current state of Milwaukee and given the above analysis, will Milwaukee succeed or fail and on what scale?

Link that gives some great background on the Milwaukee project, with additional local media coverage. .

Conclusion
Google rumored to be planning a nationwide move using advertising-supported Wi-Fi access. InternetNews.com