The full story isn't yet available, but Portland Business Journal reports on MetroFi's cash shortfall in Portland: We already knew that the network wasn't being built out further at the moment, only maintained, and that MetroFi was looking for more cash from either investors or the city (for services). But Aliza Earnshaw of the Portland Business Journal reports that the amount in question is $9m, and that the city remains uninterested in signing up for more.
Can you blame them? Would you want to face taxpayers in this climate, with the economy on the verge of recession, with almost no on-their-way-to-success stories of municipal Wi-Fi in larger cities anywhere in the U.S., and say, despite a contract we signed which committed us to nothing, a partially complete network, and a startup company that can't proceed without additional dollars, that's had contracts cancelled all over the country for similar reasons, we're going to commit to pay out millions for services that can't yet be offered with the current state of the network?
Unlikely.
The $9 million figure is for a Citywide build out that includes a dedicated public safety network operating on a separate licensed frequency the City owns, but is not using. Without the public safety network, the cost drops considerably.
Rather than playing a blame game (the City didn't buy enough services, the capital markets collapsed, MetroFi lied, etc.), the question may be whether it is time for the City to consider something other than the all or nothing strategy. For example, could City investment focus specifically on expanding the network to address some areas with a higher density of underserved areas, or to focus on some of the business corridors where outdoor access my be beneficial, or to expand where residents may be doing a Meraki mesh for connectivity, but need access to the Metrofi network for backhaul. Each approach, at much lower cost, might continue to drive up the usage (and thus potential ad revenue), which may help us all determine if there is "break-even" point for operating an advertising based network.
[Editor's note: Thanks for the clarification. Portland Business Journal restricts its full text to subscribers, so the $9m was the headline number, and no further information from the parties was forthcoming.
I don't see a blame game here. That's an outside observation. What we're looking at is the potential collapse of yet another promising network, with a city still interested in figuring out what works, and a company obviously struggling with its future.
I expect that new strategies will focus on hotzones, underserved populations, and dense areas of cities. If a company could unwire, say, 10 percent of a town that needs it the most and through grants, subscriptions, and subsidies get 50 percent of the households in that 10 percent online--moving from dial-up or from nothing--that would be a much more interesting achievement than 3 percent penetration citywide where there's plenty of broadband or free Wi-Fi.-gf]