|
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
05-14-2008, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
My personal perspective on Earthlink's departure and Nutter's acceptance of failure
Abandoning or dismantling the wireless infrastructure that has been installed throughout Philadelphia is a travesty. Pitting the situation as an choice between some ethereal technological endeavor or the ‘real’ need to focus on reducing violent crime is misleading. It’s more stagecraft then reality. Philadelphia’s pressing needs are serious and they do dictate that the city coffers can not afford to finance the Wireless Philadelphia operation alone but letting the project flounder at this stage, with much if not most of the infrastructure in place seems more a poke at our previous mayor - rubbing it it by highlighting his “silly” preoccupations and his lack of progress in ‘critical’ areas.
Eathlink, the private provider that installed the equipment and was set to manage the network, supposedly offered to transfer the system to the city or a non-profit at no cost. It boggles my mind that we can’t come up with a reasonable funding scheme to cover or justify the costs of management. I think the city needs a non-profit partner to take over the system, scrap the Earthlink business model and look for new public and private partners and grants. The Earthlink model was flawed from the start. I imagine it was mayor Street’s enthusiasm that let the model stand but purporting to offer universal access to broadband while charging standard customers more than the local telecom does and thinking there will be much of a customer base can only be described as inept. Earthlink’s exit could be a blessing, freeing the city from the bounds of a flawed business model and restrictive civic use arrangement. Philadelphia’s wireless network should be open and free. That’s a price that’s guaranteed to attract users. As Google is trying to do in San Francisco, it might create a revenue stream by pushing 10 or 15 second splash advertisements upon logon. If Goolge’s to busy with their San Francisco project, there must be some competitors out there who are loath to let Google have the only show around. This type of model provides some interesting possibilities. The network may see a new computer on the network in center city and guess the user is a visitor, running an ad for an exhibit at a local museum. Or perhaps the network recognizes the location of the user and runs an ad for a nearby restaurant or other business. Someone at home in south Philadelphia might see an ad or may see a public awareness spot with information about the new recycling program specific for their neighborhood, or information on fire prevention, it could really be anything, but it’s a new avenue to reach city residents. That’s just one way to generate some revenue. The city could offer itself up as a testbed for 21st century public services by dedicating a significant bandwidth civil services implementing technologies (in this case wireless) to increase efficiency, reduce costs and/or improve services which in and of themselves would be equivalent to generating revenue by reducing city costs elsewhere or improving services. But the city should focus on obtaining federal and state grants to implement novel pilot projects utilizing the network and addressing critical issues facing cities. One such example might be linking emergency responders with traffic signals such that an ambulance, fire truck, or police cruiser’s emergency lights/siren trigers a signal sent over the network indicating it’s location and direction of travel and then in turn trigers the traffic lights to open traffic that might be blocking his/her vehicle’s path and hold oncoming or cross traffic that might block or present a danger. It’s the type of thing that might be of valuable use in just the few blocks surrounding busy hospitals or at every traffic light in the city and offers the potential for better safety on a day to day basis and in the event of a major catastrophe. The city might look to obtain federal public transportation grants to integrate the SEPTA system with the network in an effort to increase the ridership base by appealing to new demographics. One issue buses and trolleys have in Philadelphia is that they share the same crowded streets as the rest of the gridlocked traffic. But if they were to utilize a similar system to that described above for emergency vehicles, they might find traffic flowing a little smoother and riders may find SEPTA vehicles more or less immune from the gridlock faced by the average driver. Along with this, SEPTA could use the network to provide location and progress information for it’s vehicles and routes. Simple inductive loops (like those that tell traffic lights that cars are waiting) along a route can measure traffic flow speed and density and sent back through the network along with SEPTA vehicles’ own locations and speeds provide detailed information that can be used to accurately predict the arrival time at specific stops along the route and trip time to destinations. This information can then be passed on to potential riders over the web or to cell phones, giving pedestrians information that can minimize the risk of lost-time waiting for a bus or trolley and save them money over a taxi or personal car ride. It can also let riders fine the best route to wait along; rather than simply guessing they can see for themselves which is their best option. These are just a few ideas from a single individual. The Wireless network has such great potential it would be a shame to see it squandered. And as a parting thought, think about how media became the differentiating factor in the transition from dial-up to broadband. It was the desire to download music and video that really created the ‘need’ for higher bandwidths. A similar movement is happening, where Comcast and Verizon are competing for customers looking to move into a new stage requiring even higher bandwidth for demanding online service such as high quality video contend streamed on demand. A free wireless system that delivers perhaps 300 kb/s to users and be below the threshold for delivering high quality streaming media will not compete in the cable and telecom’s future market, just as dial-up hasn’t really been competing with them for years. But I bet they’d jump at the chance to advertise their superior products to users logging on to the inferior network, maybe enough to fund it indirectly. 
|
|
05-14-2008, 02:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why not the existing nonprofit, Wireless Philadelphia?
I like your thinking on this subject.
__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia “Basically I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.” --Theresa Neilson Hayden
|
|
05-14-2008, 03:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"You down wit OPM?" Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"
|
| Advertisement | |||
|
|
05-14-2008, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Letting it drop was Nutters best & only option. The monthly fees are essentially bandwith & service provider costs. Which even a non-profit would have to encounter. No sense in the city trying to take that over, it would only fail even more. Last edited by PASnow : 05-14-2008 at 04:18 PM.
|
|
05-14-2008, 04:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
TotallyInfected
Those are great ideas, I think you should start a company to provide just that. It is not the place of the City to provide internet service to its citizens.
__________________
City air makes free.
|
|
05-14-2008, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Earthlink network could fit a niche by being ad-supported, avoiding direct competition with for-profit providers while offering access in line with community goals, access to online services such as educational sites, banking, government services, not to mention promoting computer literacy in general. Even for potential FIOS customers, not everyone needs mammoth bandwidth in their pocket. People with FIOS can torrent all movies they want, they still might find a free wireless system useful for simple communication purposes. And not everyone signs up for another hefty monthly bill just because they can. Considering the WiFi plan aimed to address gaps within the city of Verizon's DSL coverage, which was being offered as low as $15/month at the time, I can't imagine more expensive networks being rolled out in those areas any time soon. Point being: -There is a network - why take it down when we could get meaningful use from it? -Current network providers don't serve low income neighborhoods/markets - and their more expensive services won't either. -If the WiFi network can provide adequate continuity to serve as a basic gateway for residents, either priced out of the private market in their homes or on the roam, there's value there. -There's opportunity to bring real innovation to public services through integration with a WiFi network. A non-profit partner might be able to facilitate that, while Earthlink obviously had no plans to do so with their 800 or so 'government accounts.' http://The San Francisco... Google/E...cial situation[/quote] Maybe that means Google's back on the market for a new partner and might be intrigued by the chance to help develop public service systems using location awareness technology... it is right up their ally (and apparent business outlook... google maps, android) This reminds me of the current computer situation... I can build a fully capable computer for maybe $100-$150 (using retail parts) that can handle all the typical duties just fine, in fact I have. Or I could spend $1500 building one that has capacity I would rarely use. There are people out there who always want the most they can get, rather than what they can use. Whatever - don't hate
|
|
05-14-2008, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Second thought, let the private sector handle all that, I mean look how awesome it's working out for the people of Jamaica, I mean head down there and see how great things are going... just don't leave the compound. This is pretty much like saying the city shouldn't provide parks, or a clean river, or playgrounds, or even partial funding for public transportation or any number of non-mission critical endeavors. But beyond the snarky-ness of original the comment, I do agree that the city shouldn't be in charge of managing it - especially this city.
|
|
05-14-2008, 05:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Forget the funding and expenses part of it ... even people that WANTED to be customers couldn't be because the system sucked. I am a network engineer by trade and I had no success with it in my house. So, now, besides calculating the cost to finish covering the rest of the City and the cost to operate it, calculate the cost to fix it. I have absolutely zero faith on the ability of City Hall to run such a project... nor SHOULD City Hall be running such a project. This has nothing to do with snubbing John Street. This has to do with funding programs that work. Instead of operating the system, it would probably be cheaper to just buy monthly internet access for low income.
__________________
|
|
05-14-2008, 05:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Among the things that very effectively block or interfere with WiFi signals: wet tree leaves and the metal mesh widely used in stucco walls. Earthlink is asking a court to allow them to remove the equipment anyway.
__________________
Cheers, Jayfar -- “I am indeed well aware of the history of Conventional (sic) Hall, both globally and locally, and can assure you that we are carefully exploring avenues for its future.” -- Penn President Amy Gutmann 5 days before demolition began.
|
|
05-14-2008, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
