Is City-Wide Wi-Fi a Dead Idea?

It's a shame, but Metro-Fi in Portland, Oregon was a spectacular failure. I'd suggest that efforts to deploy metro wifi networks focused on the wrong technology at the wrong time.

The project was a partnership between the City and a private company (Metro-Fi), who agreed to put up access points all over town with an emphasis on public spaces, parks, and popular gathering spots.

Access to the network was free, but included HTTP-injected iframe ads and frequent interstitial ads between pageviews. Compounding the woeful experience this provided, the network itself was very slow. Checking anything beyond the complexity of Reddit could become a multi-minute affair. The company also offered Metro-Fi Premium, an ad-free version of the service for around $20/month. It was positioned as a replacement for Comcast or Qwest, but no one took it seriously.

The reach of the network was also quite poor. I could almost never get a signal or acquire a connection if I found an AP - it's the sort of thing you'd regard as the last resort if there were no open APs nearby.

In the end, Metro-Fi went bankrupt, defaulted on their contract, and left the city littered with dozens to hundreds of wireless antennas atop intersections, utility poles, etc. that the city now has to pay to remove (the cost of which was estimated at something like $70,000).

(An alternative project called PersonalTelco.net, a non-profit gang of Portland hackers who wanted to bring fast, free access to popular gathering spaces like coffee shops, bookstores, etc. had much more success in bringing fast access to some of the most popular spots, but I wouldn't include it as a "metro wifi" project in that it focused on a few spaces rather than blanket coverage.)

Several months ago Clear (a partnership between Intel, Sprint, and Comcast) launched WiMAX across the metro area. It's fast. Real-world tests (read: dude with his laptop at a bookstore) came out on par with a DSL landline. It's cheap, at $20/month. And because each antenna has roughly the range of a GSM tower (in fact, most are mounted upon them), the network's range is much greater at a fraction of the cost. And while most laptops lack integrated WiMAX support, people are quite happy to plug in a USB adapter.

It's still too early to see how Clear will fare in Portland, but these factors give them a much better shot at success. I only wish the city would have had such foresight a few years ago and invested in WiMAX instead of wifi.

Can anyone from Atlanta comment on Clear's performance and public opinion?

I dont want to pay 3 companies (home, iphone and roaming wifi) for my internet needs. Whether it is a dead idea or not, these companies need to work together to provide me 1 package to access HSI anywhere and everywhere.

I never understood why people were so excited about city-wide Wi-FI networks when we already knew 4G networks were coming. Maybe there are reasons to prefer the former over the latter, but I never heard anyone who was advocating for city-wide Wi-Fi even mention 4G.

If the local San Francisco government had queried the local technology voter base instead of immediately selling out for a franchise deal with Google/Earthlink, we'd probably have city-wide networking (not just WiFi) by now.

I've done this kind of work professionally (including wiring a multi-acre outdoor campus), and I would have happily donated my evenings/weekends to wiring my own neighborhood. I also know quite a few other technology-capable individuals that would have pitched in as well.

It's the kind of project that needs a central municipal hand to provide an organizational and management framework, right-of-way, etc. I wrote my city supervisor about it when the WiFi idea was languishing, but unsurprisingly never received a response.

Google made a lot of hoopla about blanketing Mountain View with Wi-Fi, but it seems to be a failure. I rarely get a signal anywhere I go, and the one place I go where I do get a signal seems to have a bad backhaul link (it shows up and gives me an IP address, but doesn't move packets). If I sit on the sidewalk under a lamppost with one of the boxes it works. I think they underestimated the difficulty.

Since canceling my cell and Internet mobile service I began carrying around my iPod Touch. I'm in Maryland suburbia and wherever I go i'm able to see WiFi connections. Unfortunately for me in 2009 70% of those are locked up. I wish everyone kept their wifi unlocked that way there would be a solid free option in all cities and even in suburbia(s)!

Anderson, IN has city wide Wi-Fi. Interestingly, the city government put this in place as a "network" for the city services. It was opened up for public use later.

With the services available on the internet today, ie: VOIP, and Hulu, free wifi would equate to free telephone and TV as well which would put the government in direct competition with the phone and cable companies.

City-wide WiFi is usually pitched as making sense in a city in which there are many underprivileged who may not be able to get their own wireless service. But then again, if someone can buy a laptop to use wireless then why can't they pay for wireless service? I guess it would be a nice thing to have if the city budget has that much extra to spare.

In the meantime you can always skim wireless from numerous unsecured hotspots. In any major city there is going to be free wireless everywhere from both businesses and homes.

hey! new technology! will communism work now? how about now? maybe now! http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Dummies-Sean-Masaki-Flynn/dp...

I've always expected city-wide WiFi to fail if it were provided by the government. I've never really understood what the advantage for the government was, unless the assumption was that it would add to the network infrastructure of the city for city use, which is silly, as they wouldn't be able to use it for private communications.

As a tax-payer, I can't imagine wanting to pay for something like that either, at least not above what I already pay my wireless carrier. I agree that it would be a nicety, but given the underfunding of most schools / bridge / roads / etc., I can't honestly imagine wanting some of my tax dollars to go toward WiFi, of all things.

I really don't care about wifi as long as I have 3G. It works everywhere, and it's a very simple opt-in solution where those who want it can pay for the service.

But then again, I don't live in the US. Telcos actually works around here.

They tried to deploy a few in Moscow, gave up and now trying Wi-Max.

Still alive in Philly (Wireless Philadelphia)