BelAir's Phil Belanger sent in this report: BelAir makes equipment that gets sold into the municipal networking market, among many markets they're involved in, and via BelAir's media relations person, Phil sent his thoughts. Now before you dismiss Phil as a vendor, it's probably important to note that he's one of the many people responsible for the fruition of 802.11b and Wi-Fi in general, from his days at Aironet to sitting on 802.11 committees and co-authoring specifications to co-founding the Wi-Fi Alliance. He's also had high-level positions at Wayport and Vivato before joining BelAir. Let's just say he has a perch from which he views these issues.

I don't often post email from manufacturers or service providers, but Phil is talking about the space in which his operates rather than promoting his particular hardware instantiation of it, which makes it fair game. Here's his email posted with his permission reaction to the New Millennium Research Council's municipal networking report:

BelAir's position on the NMRC series of reports is that while the authors of the report clearly only did a cursory job of understanding the Municipal Wi-Fi market, and reported many technical inaccuracies about Wi-Fi and WiMAX, there were some valid points made.

BelAir agrees that it makes sense for service providers to own and operate these networks. We think that this is way it will eventually roll out. There are not many examples of that yet, but it is early days. This market is not well formed.

The most likely scenario for Philly is that it will be run by a service provider. (It could even be Verizon!) The city just wants to make sure that it happens, has certain requirements for its applications and is will to provide funding and promotion to make it happen. We applaud that.

Now for some specific comments on some of the problems with the reports.

From David McClure's paper, "The Myth of Municipal Wireless Networks:"

"Here's the spin: municipal Wi-Fi networking is a widespread, growing, David versus Goliath effort to bring broadband connectivity to communities poorly served - if at all - by existing broadband providers. Impatient and frightened of being left behind in the information economy, these communities can build and operate their own networks at rates much lower than those offered by companies whose goal is to make a profit. Consumers will get free Internet access and it will cost the cities almost nothing."

BelAir agrees that the hype is silly and not representative of the way these networks will roll out. That is essentially the sales pitch of many municipal Wi-Fi vendors - anti-carrier, anti-cellular etc. However, this is not the discussion that cities are having about municipal Wi-Fi. In fact, most of the cities that have already deployed municipal Wi-Fi do not offer and did not contemplate Internet access for the public (free or not). Most of the networks have been, as Wi-Fi Networking News noted, put up to support public safety applications.

Across the board the papers are inconsistent in their use of the terminology and it creates logic problems. It is our understanding is that this series of papers is supposed to be about Municipal Wi-Fi networks. This means a Wi-Fi network that spreads across the whole town. It does not necessarily mean that the city owns and operates the network. Additionally, the authors fail to recognize that a Wi-Fi network is not the same as other forms of broadband--wired or wireless.

There are many arguments about the financial failure of previous municipal broadband projects. These miss the point. This is not fiber to the home. This is specifically about using Wi-Fi to cover the whole town. Wi-Fi has specific properties that enable a very different service and a number of applications that are not possible with other broadband techniques. The multi-service nature of Wi-Fi is entirely missed in all of these reports. As several respondents have noted, including Wi-Fi Networking News, the emergency services application is not covered at all.

McClure's statement: "Networks will not close the digital divide."

To BelAir, this is one of the more offensive points in the papers.

Municipal wireless networks can help to bridge the digital divide by providing a quick and cost effective way to deliver broadband internet access to underserved areas. However, "bridging the digital divide" is an empty slogan unless this network access is also accompanied by a program that provides client devices to the people who need access for free or at a very low cost. The wireless network is not a complete solution.

A few of the reports attack Philadelphia specifically (and the whole thing seems a response to Philly). This is entirely inappropriate. The "digital divide" point is one example. Philly wireless has used that term in their description of the mission for their network. They also have a well thought out plan to address the other issues that would enable people to access the network. In Philly's case it is not a meaningless slogan.

McClure then goes on to conclude that municipal Wi-Fi networks should have "A quantifiable cost/benefits analysis; a full accounting for costs; division of responsibility; open, competitive bidding processes; and accountability."

Of course, it's easy to agree with all of those points--and the city of Philadelphia is following ALL of them in a very open and methodical process.

Perhaps the best paper is written by Braden Cox. However, it's all over the map and focuses on legal issues. That said, BelAir agrees with many of his conclusions such as:

"Governments can take steps to ensure that the private sector performs as desired. Municipalities should focus on ways to make it easier for private companies to provide service. State legislatures should ensure that they make right-of-way access available on terms that are fair, administratively efficient, nondiscriminatory, and pro-competitive. Federal telecommunications law requires reform and spectrum needs to be better managed. Removing restrictive regulations would provide a boost to the widespread deployment of broadband service and allow for the natural order of things, i.e., governments in the business of governing and private sector firms in the business of competing."