554
Chapter XXIX
The Wireless City
Sukumar Ganapati
Florida International University, USA
Christian F. Schoepp
Florida International University, USA
Abstract
In this chapter, we explore the evolution of wireless broadband networks in cities. We examine the technological alternatives for city-wide implementation, and the governance arrangements for such implementation. Several wireless infrastructure technologies, such as Wi-Fi, WiMax, and Mesh networks have
quickly evolved during this century. In terms of governance, we identify different models of ownership
and deployment of wireless networks. Although the municipal provision of wireless broadband is controversial, we argue that the municipalities have a crucial role to provide such network infrastructure.
Introduction
Wireless is the future of broadband. It offers several advantages over the wired connections for
Internet access. It allows for greater mobility and
flexibility, so that wireless devices can be used
in the field for various purposes. However, wireless accessibility in the field requires extensive
wireless networks. Although wireless hotspots
are available in several locations, such as coffee
shops, fast food places, airports, and hotel lobbies, such wireless coverage may not be available
beyond these sites. In this chapter, we focus on
the technological and governance alternatives for
providing citywide broadband wireless coverage.
Consideration of these alternatives is an important
issue for local governments.
Technologically, several types wireless network alternatives have emerged in the recent
years, including the Wi-Fi, Mesh Networks, and
WiMax. These networks hold both prospects and
problems for citywide implementation in terms of
costs, management, and technical characteristics.
These wireless technologies do not necessarily
replace wired networks; rather, they complement
and supplement the wired networks for last mile
solutions.
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
The Wireless City
With respect to governance, considerable
debate has emerged about whether or not local
governments should provide the wireless infrastructure. Proponents argue that the municipal
wireless networks are required for bridging the
digital divide (“digital inclusion”), enhancing economic development, public safety, and municipal
field operations. Critics maintain that the private
sector can better provide the network services.
However, few private sector telecommunication
agencies have stepped in to provide city wide
coverage. Also, municipal wireless networks
have started to hit snags recently in the United
States, as a few major cities dropped their plans
for implementing such networks. We identify the
different models of governance, and argue that
municipalities have an important role to play in
implementing wireless broadband networks despite the criticisms. Our focus is mainly on the
American cities, although several cities internationally have undertaken wireless initiatives (e.g.
Taipei, London).
The rest of the chapter is organized as follows.
First, we provide a background on the evolution
of broadband wireless. Second, we dwell on the
technological alternatives of wireless broadband
networks. Third, we explore the governance alternatives, and give particular attention to municipal
wireless broadband. Lastly, we conclude with the
significance of local governments in the provision
of wireless broadband.
EVOLUTION of wireless
Broadband Networks
Infrastructure, in general, is a public good, where
governments have a stake in developing it. There
is an extensive coverage of basic infrastructure
such as the telephone and power lines (overhead or
underground) across the country, having evolved
over more than a century. Telephone lines (e.g.
copper wires) represent the basic component of
telecommunications infrastructure. With the
exponential growth of Internet based services
that require high bandwidth (i.e. broadband),
the traditional communications infrastructure
has proven to be insufficient. Traditional dial-up
modems used with telephone lines, for example,
can hardly handle the emerging data, audio, voice,
and video demands. Coffman and Odlyzko (2002)
observe that Moore’s law1 is applicable for the
internet growth, wherein the data traffic almost
doubles annually. According to Pew Internet Research, the percentage of American adults online
crossed the 50 percent mark by April 2000, and
reached 71 percent by March 2007 (Horrigan,
2007). The Internet has become a crucial component for communications.
Broadband is particularly significant for the
future growth of the Internet (Gillett, Lehr and
Osorio, 2004). Broadband refers to the high speed
Internet communications, which are typically
faster than the 56.6 kilobytes per second (kbps)
speed offered by dial-up modems. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) defines the
first generation broadband as speeds that exceed
200 kbps (kilobytes per second) in at least one
direction. The broadband infrastructure includes
both wired and wireless technologies. Wired
infrastructure is based on a cable connection;
wireless infrastructure is based on transmission
and reception of radio wave signals, and does not
require a physical cable connection. Examples of
wired broadband include the Digital Subscriber
Line (DSL) (which use telephone lines), Cable
(which use cable television’s co-axial lines), Fiber to the Home (FTTH) (which use fiber lines),
and Broadband over Powerline (BPL) (which use
power lines). Wireless infrastructure includes
wireless antenna and/or towers for internet connectivity.
The broadband infrastructure has grown
overall in the United States. Table 1 shows the
growth of broadband infrastructure in the United
States between 1999 and 2006. As the table shows,
high-speed lines grew phenomenally from 2.48
million to 82.5 million between 1999 and 2006.
555
The Wireless City
Over 99 percent of the zip codes in the United
States were listed to be serviced by at least one
broadband provider in 2006 (FCC, 2007).2 According to the Pew Internet, 47 percent of adults
had broadband at home in 2007, up 5 percent from
2006 (Horrigan, 2007). The Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA) estimated the investment in network infrastructure will increase
from $15.2 billion in 2007 to $23 billion in 2010
(National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 2008, p. iii). Since
telephone and cable TV infrastructure is already
extensively available (especially in urban areas),
they form the major part of broadband. DSL and
Cable lines form the lion’s share, accounting for
nearly 70.9 percent of the high-speed lines wired
connections (Table 1).
It could be argued that wireless is the future of
the broadband. Wireless forms a relatively small
component currently: wireless and satellite accounted for 27.8 percent of the high-speed lines
(based on Table 1). According to Pew/ Internet,
about 19 percent had a wireless connection at home
in February 2007; about 34 percent of the internet
users logged on using a wireless connection either
around the house, at their workplace, or some place
else (Horrigan, 2007). Yet, wireless represents
a significant area of growth. As Table 1 shows,
satellite and wireless increased exponentially
from 3.8 million to nearly 23 million between
2005 and 2006. Government enterprises have
also increasingly adopted the wireless devices in
the work place—a Government Computer News
(GCN) survey revealed that 86 percent of agency
managers use wireless technologies for conducting agency business (Walker, 2004). U.S. wireless
providers increased their capital investment from
$18.9 billion in 2003 to $30 billion in 2007; the
investment is expected to reach $32.5 billion by
2010 (NTIA, 2008, p. 34).
Of course, as an emerging technology that has
to yet mature fully, there are several disadvantages
of wireless connections over wired ones. Wireless
security is a principal issue—despite advanced
encryption technologies, such as Wireless Encryption Protocol (WEP), wireless networks (particularly open ones) are prone to security breaches
through hacking and spoofing (i.e. impersonation).
City wide wireless networks are typically open,
providing access to anyone in the coverage area.
Confidentiality of sensitive information could be
compromised in such networks. Wireless signals
could also be jammed, resulting in denial of service
to legitimate users (Earle, 2006). Furthermore,
wireless networks may not have the same quality
of service as wired networks, due to interference
and loss of signals.
Despite its downsides, wireless holds several
prospects for broadband. The main advantages
of wireless over wired connections are flexibility
Table 1. Broadband infrastructure in the United States, 1999-2006 (high-speed lines in thousands)
1999
DSL
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
980
2,998
5,026
7,688
10,815
15,286
20,394
26,449
Cable
1,412
3,583
7,060
11,369
16,446
21,357
26,558
32,097
Fiber
42
63
92
109
116
160
448
1,030
Satellite & wireless
50
112
213
276
367
550
3,813
22,966
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
5
2,484
6,756
12,391
19,442
27,744
37,353
51,218
82,547
Power lines
Total
Note: (i) DSL includes Asymmetric and Symmetric DSL and traditional Ethernet services; (ii) fiber lines included electric
power line until 2004. Source: FCC (2007)
556
The Wireless City
and mobility. Wireless devices are portable and
can be flexibly used in the field for real time data
reading or data input. Wireless networks make
information available to employees working out
of the office and help deliver routine services
more efficiently. For example, processing building
permits via wireless technology in the field could
accelerate the entire operation. Wireless enables
Automated Meter Reading (AMR) to collect data
remotely from various metering devices (e.g.,
water, gas, electric) and to transfer the data to a
central database for manipulation. Business and
citizen customers are also increasingly adopting
wireless for their routine chores (e.g. bill payments,
information search, etc.). Of course, wireless
and wired connections are not mutually exclusive. Wired backhaul connections are required
for linking between a wireless access point and
the internet service provider, and to connect the
provider to the core Internet network.
With respect to mobility, wireless based communication devices have grown exponentially
in the 21st century. According to CTIA-Wireless Association (2007), the number of wireless
subscribers increased from 109.5 million in 2000
to 243 million in 2007. About 12.8 percent of
households in 2006 were wireless only (i.e., did
not have a land line). The traditional analog cell
phones are giving way to the 3G (third generation)
digital mobile phones (e.g. Portable Communication System, PCS phones) (Cowhey, Aronson,
and Richards, 2003). Digital wireless offers
more advantages than the analog: it can accommodate more users (due to packet switching on
channels), has less background noise, has better
sound quality, and has more security. Moreover,
digital wireless is IP based, so that it can support
Internet communications. Smart phones use the
wireless broadband for integrating voice (VOIP),
data (document), and the Internet (web browsing,
emails). Newer 3G technologies, such as Evolution Data Only (EVDO) and Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS) provide
wireless broadband services at speeds ranging
from 300 kbps to 1 mbps (megabytes per second).
The mobile systems are already being used for
e-government, particularly for government-toemployee (G2E) applications; they also hold much
potential for and government-to-citizen (G2C)
and government-to-business (G2B) applications
(Chang and Kannan, 2002).
Further, the infrastructure costs of wireless
broadband networks are less compared to wired
broadband (especially, fiber). Provision of wireless
infrastructure holds prospects for bridging the
digital divide due to the lower costs. Despite the
overall growth of broadband in the United States,
the country lags behind in terms of broadband
penetration. The United States ranked 19th among
the top 20 countries with the highest internet
broadband penetration rate in the world in 2007
(Internet World Stats, 2007). United States also
lags behind many OECD countries in terms of the
average speed and the prices paid for broadband
services (Correa, 2007, p.4). Numerous studies
have documented the persistence of digital divide
(Chakraborty and Bosman, 2005; Martin and
Robinson, 2007; NTIA, 2004; Servon, 2002).
Disparities exist in terms of the use of the internet
by low-income groups and minority households
(particularly, African Americans). Proponents of
“digital inclusion” argue for providing wireless
networks for broader internet accessibility. Of
course, the issue of bridging the digital divide
is not related to cost only; it is also related to
greater technological access and the technical
abilities of the users (Mossberger, Tolbert, and
Stansbury, 2003).
Communities across the United States are
playing a catch up game to fulfill the broadband
needs and to bridge the digital divide. The game
is an interminable one since the broadband
technology is also evolving quickly. There are
several technological alternatives available for
wireless infrastructure (Sirbu, Lehr, and Gillett,
2006). Although the infrastructure has grown, the
coverage is not extensive. Consequently, many
local governments have taken it upon themselves
557
The Wireless City
to provide the wireless infrastructure. The issue
has become quite controversial, with a heated
debate between proponents and opponents arguing for and against the municipal provision of
wireless networks respectively. Consideration
of technological and governance alternatives of
the wireless infrastructure is thus an important
issue for local governments.
The Wireless Broadband
Alternatives
Wireless broadband is based on propagation of
radio waves, where communications is enabled
through the transmission and reception of radio
frequency. For example, in a home, typically
a wireless access point (e.g., a hub or a router)
transmits data to and receives data from a client
(e.g. a laptop user with a wireless modem). The
access point is generally connected to the internet service provider through a wired backhaul
(e.g. DSL). In a city or metropolitan context, the
principles are similar, but implementation is more
complex due to the geographical scale of coverage and the intermediate barriers (e.g. buildings,
trees, mountains). The range and penetrability of
the radio waves through these barriers depends
on the radio frequency and the technology used
for transmission.
The radio frequency allocation is managed by
the FCC and the NTIA. Whereas FCC manages
radio frequencies used by commercial providers
(e.g radio and television broadcasters) and public
safety and health officials (e.g., police and emergency medical technicians), NTIA manages the
frequencies used by the federal government (e.g.,
air traffic control and national defense). The frequency spectrum could be licensed or unlicensed.
Licensed spectrum covers the range of frequencies
that service providers have exclusive rights to
transmit (e.g. TV and radio station frequencies) in
a particular geographical area. Service providers
obtain the rights through FCC auction or sublease
558
from another provider having the rights to transmit
over the spectrum. Unlicensed spectrum includes
the range of frequencies that are not allocated to
any service provider. Licensed and unlicensed
frequencies have their strengths and weaknesses.
Licensed frequencies are costly, but have little
interference from other providers. The 3G digital
wireless devices provided by commercial mobile
service providers operate on the licensed spectrum
(these comply with International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT-2000) family of standards).
Unlicensed frequencies do not involve any costs,
but are limited in power, and are more prone to
interference from competing devices using the
same frequencies. The unlicensed spectrum holds
better prospects for municipal wireless due to
the lower costs. Various technologies have also
evolved to minimize problems such as interference.3 Typically, the wireless broadband comply
with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc (IEEE) standards. Interoperable
devices could function under both the IMT and
IEEE standards.
Wireless broadband could be classified into
short-, medium-, and long-range networks based
on the geographical coverage. Short-range Personal Area Networks (PANs) span about 30 feet
(they comply with IEEE 802.15 family of standards). For example, Bluetooth and Ultra Wide
Band (UWB) are PAN technologies. Bluetooth
equipment use the unlicensed frequency (2.4 GHz)
and have speeds of upto 720 kbps; they could
be used for home security, streaming audio, adhoc file sharing. UWB uses low-powered, pulse
modulation (often exceeding 1 GHz) and can have
much higher speeds upto 100 mbps; the higher
speeds allow it to be used for wireless monitors
and faster data transfer between various devices.
The short range PANs are unsuitable for wireless
broadband at a larger geographical scale such as
the city level. The medium range and the long
range wireless are better suited at this level. Hybrid
solutions that build on medium and long range
wireless have also evolved. These technological
alternatives are considered below.
The Wireless City
Medium Range Wireless
Medium range wireless is used for point-to-point
communications upto 300 feet, and is generally
utilized for local area networks. Wi-Fi (Wireless
Fidelity) is the most common form of the medium range wireless. The wireless access points
installed in homes are typically Wi-Fi routers.
Wi-Fi hotspots are venues equipped with Wi-Fi
antenna, enabling access to wireless broadband.
Wired backhaul connections (e.g. DSL or fiber)
generally link the hotspots to the service provider
or the network core. Since the range of Wi-Fi access points is limited, a network of such access
points is required for an area wide coverage (e.g.
citywide or neighborhood level).
Lehr and McKnight (2003) argue that the WiFi is both complementary to and in competition
with the mobile 3G technologies. Several mobile
service providers use Wi-Fi hot spots to complement their phone services. Such mobile devices
are interoperable. If the mobile device is within
the range of a hotspot, it uses Wi-Fi for communications; if the device is out of range, it uses the
providers’ towers. Competition arises from the
public and commercial locations that provide the
Wi-Fi hotspots. These locations provide internet
access without requiring the mobile connection.
Coffee shops, airports, and hotel lobbies typically
provide such Wi-Fi hotspots. JiWire.com (2007),
which tracks hotspots around the world, identified
over 66,000 hotspots in the United States. TIA
projects the number to grow to 83,000 by 2010
(NTIA, 2008, p. 20).
Wi-Fi access points transmit radio signals in
the unlicensed frequency spectrum. Wi-Fi devices
comply with the IEEE 802.11 family of standards.
The 802.11a access points offer broadband speeds
of upto 54 mbps over the 5.8 MHz band; however,
they are not as popular. More popular ones are the
ones that operate over the 2.4 MHz unlicensed
band. These are the access points that meet the
802.11b through 802.11g standards. 802.11b offer
broadband speeds of up to 11 mbps; 802.11g offer
up to 54 mbps. Speedboost (Super G) routers,
which are marketed as “pre-802.11n,” are capable
of providing speeds from 108 to 240 mbps.
Long Range Wireless
Long range wireless networks are point-to-point
or point-to-multipoint connections that can span
distances as far as 30 miles. Wireless Metropolitan
Area Networks (WMANs) are such long-range
networks. WMANs are vendor specific or comply
with IEEE 802.16 standards. The basic 802.16
standard requires line of sight (i.e. no intermediate barriers). WMANs often use Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (LMDS) for reducing interference and have data speed upto 155 mbps within
a 2 mile range. WiMax (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) is a more recent
long-range technology, initiated by the WiMAX
forum. It is based on improved 802.16 standards
approved in 2005 for interoperability and data
transfer. Unlike the WMAN’s LMDS technology,
WiMax employs Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing (OFDM) for reducing interference.
WiMax does not require line of sight and can
penetrate through obstructions like buildings and
trees. Under such non line of sight conditions,
WiMax covers about 3 miles radius to provide a
data speed upto 75 mbps; with line of sight, the
range could go upto 31 miles and provide data
speed upto 155 mbps. WiMax typically requires
the installation of a base transmission tower for
broadcasting the signal. Due to their longer range,
WiMaX networks can produce a “wireless cloud”
connectivity that covers an entire city using a few
base stations. WiMax networks require one access
point for about two square miles in urban areas,
and one every six square miles for rural areas. In
contrast, Wi-Fi networks require 24 to 40 access
points per square mile (Opsahl, 2008).
WiMAX could operate on both on the licensed
and unlicenced frequencies. Licensed WiMAX
operates in the 10 to 66 GHz range; unlicensed
operates in the 2 to 11 Ghz range. The market for
559
The Wireless City
WiMax devices is, however, not as developed as
that of the Wi-Fi. WiMax networks are also not as
widely available as Wi-Fi. WiMax networks are
still in their developing stages, and are expected
to grow quickly in 2010. A few cities such as
Brownsville, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia have
implemented WiMax networks. WiMax networks
are frequently used for broadband access to mobile
phones. WiMax also holds much potential for
rural areas, where wired infrastructure may be
deficient and there is longer line of sight.
Satellite technology represents another fast
emerging long-range alternative for broadband
access. Currently, satellite broadband is provided
through one or two geostationary satellites, which
relay signals to small receiving “dishes” at fixed
locations. A few commercial fixed satellite service
providers such as Wild-Blue Communications,
Inc., Hughes, and Gilat have emerged to provide
the satellite broadband. However, satellite services
are more expensive than the terrestrial alternatives, mainly due to the costs of additional equipment that customers must install to receive such
services. Yet, the number of satellite subscribers
increased from 50,000 in 2004 to about 700,000
in 2006 (FCC, 2007).
Hybrid Wireless Networks
The hybrid wireless networks build on the medium
and/or long range wireless to provide citywide
coverage. The WiMax could, for example, serve
as an alternative to the wired backhaul. In this
arrangement, the internet core is linked to the
WiMax transmission towers, which then serve
the local Wi-Fi antennas for providing internet
service to the clients. The hybrid arrangement
also offers redundancy for Wi-Fi networks—if a
Wi-Fi access point fails, the user can switch to a
WiMAX connection.
The mesh network is another alternative,
which could be built on Wi-Fi networks. In this,
each access point is a Wi-Fi device that acts as a
node. The node is a self-standing relay (i.e. an-
560
tenna) that can be powered by solar energy. The
mesh consists of several nodes at short distances,
enabling them to communicate with each other
with less interference. There is no central tower
required for transmission. A mesh network could
be of two types: the full mesh topology, where
each node is directly connected to all other nodes;
and partial mesh topology, where some nodes
are connected to all nodes, but other nodes are
connected only to those nodes with which they
exchange the most data. When one node is down,
another functioning node is used to transmit the
data. As the prices of the nodes have fallen down
over time, mesh networks have also become popular alternative for area wide coverage. Typically,
the mesh networks use the unlicensed frequency.
Mesh networking provides new opportunities for
communities to provide wireless broadband (e.g.,
Wi-Fi cooperatives).
Governance arrangements
With the rapid evolution of the wireless alternatives, several models of governance for deploying
wireless broadband have evolved. A simple model
is that of the Wi-Fi hotspots referred to earlier, in
which wireless connections are available within
a limited zone. In such a model, a singular organizational entity typically owns and deploys the
wireless. However, the governance arrangements
are more complex in a citywide wireless deployment, covering entire downtown areas, parks,
or larger urban areas. The complexity arises
due to the involvement of the public, private, as
well as the nonprofit agencies in the provision
of broadband infrastructure. Municipalities and
public utilities play a particularly important role
in most of these governance arrangements since
they typically own the infrastructure (e.g. electric
utility poles, water towers) where the antennas and
other equipment required for wireless networks
could be installed.
The Wireless City
A few authors have identified the different
types of governance models that are currently in
practice. Bar and Park (2006) identify three types
of models based on the ownership of networks
(city-ownership, single private ownership, and
multiple ownership). Lehr, Sirbu, and Gillet (2006)
highlight five models based on service delivery
(retail, wholesale, franchise, real estate, and coordination models). Tapia, Maitland and Stone
(2006) emphasize that there are hybrid models
besides public or private ownership; these include
community networks, public utilities, private consortium, and cooperative wholesale. The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC, 2006) identified six
models of deploying wireless: non-profit, cooperative, contracting out, public-private partnership,
municipal, and government loan-grant.
In our approach, we build on the earlier models to describe the governance arrangements for
ownership and deployment of the wireless networks. Ownership is significant since it defines
the property rights over the infrastructure required
for wireless networks. Deployment is important
for longer term maintenance and ensuring the
quality of service. Our purpose is to examine the
applicability (i.e. their pros and cons) of the governance arrangements in cities. We identify four
models: (i) municipal ownership and deployment
of wireless broadband; (ii) community ownership
and deployment; (iii) public-private (or nonprofit)
partnerships, with divided roles of ownership
and deployment; and (iv) private ownership and
deployment. The strengths and weaknesses of
these models are considered below.
Municipal Ownership and
Deployment
In this model, the municipality owns and deploys
the wireless Internet network. Although some
aspects could be contracted out, the local government is primarily responsible for the designing,
funding, implementing, and maintaining the
network. The infrastructure could be financed
through taxes, revenue bonds, other government grants, or user fees. The municipality may
offer the wireless broadband as an amenity for
residents, businesses, or tourists, or to enhance
other municipal services. The municipality also
markets the network service, and provides customer support and billing.
Chaska, Minnesota, is a prime example of this
governance model (Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), 2006). The city began to offer wireless
broadband to its 18,000 residents in 2004 for
a fee. While the local government is in charge
of the infrastructure, the implementation was
outsourced to several private sector firms. Internet coverage is provided through a Wi-Fi Mesh
network of 250 antennas mounted on city light
poles to cover about 16 square miles. Although
1,500 subscribers were required to break even
financially, the city had over 2,000 subscribers. A
few other cities have also initiated their wireless
broadband on the municipal governance model.
These include Lompoc, California (which charges
user fees, similar to Chaska) and St. Cloud, Florida
(which provides free wireless services within its
city limits).
The municipal governance model may be
suitable for small cities, where the subscriber
market may be too small for private providers to
invest. Municipal ownership of the utilities also
facilitates the broadband infrastructure provision.
If the subscriber base is small, mesh networks
are technologically more attractive due to their
lower costs. However, as the wireless technology
evolves, the cost calculus of more advanced wireless systems such as WiMax needs to be examined.
The local government also needs to establish a new
city department or expand the scope of existing
utilities to provide such services (Tapia, Maitland
and Stone, 2006). The dependence on tax dollars could make the model politically difficult to
achieve. In larger cities, the model could be less
attractive since there is a substantial market of
subscribers for private providers to operate.
561
The Wireless City
Community Ownership and
Deployment
In this model, the local community undertakes
the onus of ownership and deployment. Two alternative forms of this model have emerged. In
the first alternative, a local non-profit is formed
to organize, fund, deploy, and maintain a wireless
broadband network. The nonprofit may provide
the internet service without charge to users. The
non-profit itself could be funded through taxes,
grants, donations, and advertisements. The nonprofit (or in partnership with private companies)
builds the network and provides marketing
and customer service. The nonprofit oversees
network management, markets it, and attracts
retail providers. Philadelphia exemplifies such a
model, where the city government catalyzed the
formation of Wireless Philadelphia as a nonprofit
initiative. The nonprofit partnered with Earthlink
to deploy a 135 square mile wireless broadband
network to provide fee-based network access
(Jain, Mandviwalla, and Banker, 2007). New York
City’s NYCwireless is also a nonprofit that has
built free, public wireless networks in over ten
New York City parks and open spaces through
partnerships with local parks organizations and
business improvement districts. Hermosa Beach
has also used this model to provide free Wi-Fi to
its residents, and it is funded through advertisement revenues.
In the second alternative, the local businesses
and other interested citizen groups may pool
the resources for implementing the broadband
network. The city or community group acts as a
catalyst. Since the local businesses support the
network, the need for municipal funds is lower.
This model has been used in Austin, Texas, where
the AustinWireless City Project deploys nearly 75
hotspots in the downtown.
The success of the community model depends
on the collective action enabled through the nonprofits or the local business establishments. The
communities’ investment may provide impetus
562
for economic development and revitalization that
increase property values and attract the creative
class. However, this model does not provide
sustained funding strategy to support network
maintenance and upgrades. Moreover, communities may themselves not be well versed with
the technological advancements; they may face
technological obsolescence quickly. Lastly, the
model may be suitable for achieving collective
action within small areas (e.g. neighborhoods),
rather than at the city scale (city initiatives have
mainly focused on the downtown areas).
Public-Private Partnerships
In the public-private partnership model, there is a
division of responsibilities between the partners
for the implementation of the wireless broadband.
There are several alternatives of partnerships
for the implementation. Lehr, Sirbu and Gillett
(2006) identify five such alternatives. The first
alternative is the retail service model, where the
municipality offers retail services to consumers
over infrastructure that it owns and operates.
Municipal Electrical Utilities (MEUs) that own
their infrastructure provide such services. Local
educational institutions, public hospitals, the police and fire departments could also provide the
services. The second alternative is the wholesale
model, where the municipality owns and operates
the local access network. The network provides a
wholesale open access platform for private service
providers to use. Several utilities in Washington
state (e.g. Grant County) use such open access
infrastructure.
The third alternative is the franchise model,
wherein the municipality contracts with a private
firm to build and operate the facilities. Municipalities put out Request for Proposals (RFPs) for
bidding and incumbent telephone and cable
companies (mainly new carriers) respond to the
bid. This alternative is more popular. The fourth
alternative is the real estate model, where the
municipality provides access to conduit or public
The Wireless City
rights-of-way. This is a minimalist alternative,
with relatively little municipal investments. Yet,
local governments can manage access to outside
plant structures and facilities. The fifth is the coordination model, where the municipality aggregates
demand to demonstrate an assured demand base
in order to reduce the risks (and costs) to private
sector provider. This is also a minimalist model,
where little municipal investment is required.
The various alternatives of public private partnerships model offer perhaps the best prospects
for implementing wireless broadband. The local
government involvement enables infrastructure
access to private providers; competition between
the private providers in the bidding process could
lower the costs. The private sector could better
adapt to the evolving wireless technological
choices. Yet, even in this model, lock-in effects of
the technology of particular providers is feasible.
Hence, municipal involvement to regulate the
private sector is important.
Private Ownership and Deployment
Municipalities have little or no role to play in this
model. Rather, the private sector is in charge of the
ownership and deployment of wireless broadband.
One or more private sector provider(s) provide
the broadband service to end users (both to the
citizens and to the municipality). Private investment is used to fund the infrastructure, and the
provider charges a fee for accessing the broadband
network. City funds are hardly used for funding
the infrastructure. The provider is responsible
for operating and maintaining the network and
providing technical support, customer service, and
billing. Most broadband networks in the United
States are built in this model.
The advantage of this model is that there is
very little municipal involvement. City funds are
not required for its implementation. Technological
obsolescence would be less pronounced, since
private agencies will need to provide competitive services. However, this model is most use-
ful where there is a threshold subscriber market
for the wireless broadband. Large cities benefit
from this model, since there are several providers. This model may not be suitable for smaller
cities. Moreover, this model may not address the
equity concerns of digital divide and promotion
of digital inclusion.
Growth of Municipal wireless
broadband networks
Municipalities have an important role to play
in all the governance models described above,
except the last one where the private sector owns
and deploys the wireless network. However, the
private telephone and cable companies have not
stepped in to provide the networks. Rather, Botein
(2006/07) argues that the private sector retreated
from the “electronic superhighway” during the
1990s. The failure of the market to provide such
networks prompted many cities and counties
to provide the network services by themselves
(Lehr, Sirbu, and Gillett, 2006). Table 2 indicates
the growth in number of cities and counties that
have deployed or are planning to deploy wireless
internet. As the table shows, the number of such
cities and counties increased from 122 in 2005
to 412 in 2007. Figure 1 shows the geographical
distribution of the places.
Several reasons facilitated the growth of
municipal wireless networks. First, the wireless
deployment costs are lower than those of the
wired infrastructure. Expensive underground
fiber and other conduits are not required to be
installed; the radio antennas could be installed
on existing utilities’ infrastructure (e.g. in lamp
posts). Second, the municipalities envisage
economic development benefits due to wireless
broadband. Wireless broadband would enable
retail and other trade benefiting local businesses,
especially in economically depressed areas (Lehr,
et. al., 2005). It has added potential for attracting
tourism and the upwardly mobile “creative class”,
563
The Wireless City
Table 2. Municipal Wireless Networks in the United States, 2005-2007
July 2005
June 2006
August 2007
Region/Citywide
38
59
92
City hotzones
22
32
68
Municipal or public safety use only
28
35
40
Planned deployments
34
121
215
122
247
415
Total
Note: Cities and counties that are considering deployment of a city- or countywide network are not included in the list. There
are 42 such entities. Source: http://www.muniwireless.com/initiatives/2007/08/12/updated-august-2007-list-of-us-cities-andcounties-with-wifi/
Figure 1. Municipal wireless networks in the United States
Legend
Under Consideration
Deployed
who seek out the places with high-tech facilities
and amenities (Florida, 2003). Third, municipal
provision of the wireless broadband would be
beneficial for digital inclusion, bringing in such
groups that were traditionally left out of internet
usage due to digital divide.
Lastly, the government itself is a consumer of
the wireless broadband, and the infrastructure
would help deliver the services to citizens more
efficiently. Wireless broadband could be useful
for public safety, emergency, transportation,
public health, and field use by employees. Wi-Fi
networks enable police officers to use laptops
or PDAs in their cars to search databases such
564
as vehicle records, criminal offenses, drivers’
license, to file reports and write tickets from
the field. Emergency vehicles such as fire and
ambulance have also used wireless broadband.
Wireless connections with remote sensors are
used to read data (e.g. water meters, gas meters)
automatically. Furthermore, expanding broadband access provides a means of increasing long
distance education opportunities.
The municipal provision of wireless broadband
networks is, however, quite controversial. Private
telephone and cable service providers have been
critical of the municipal provision, and have lobbied the state governments to limit the municipal
The Wireless City
involvement. Indeed many states even drafted bills
prohibiting or limiting municipal involvement in
the provision of wireless internet. While the bills
have not gone forward or were revoked in a few
states, a few states did succeed in getting them
through. Missouri’s law prohibiting municipalities
to offer broadband communications was upheld
in the U.S. Supreme Court (Nixon v. Missouri
Municipal League, et. al., 541 U.S. 125, 2004).
A few major cities and counties such as Chicago,
Houston, Miami-Dade have also dropped their
plans for continuing with the municipal implementation of wireless networks. Furthermore,
private agencies such as Earthlink, which were
initially enthusiastic in partnering for providing
municipal wireless services, have scaled down
their involvement substantially (Urbina, 2008).
Several arguments are provided against the
municipal provision of wireless broadband (Balhoff and Rowe, 2005; Ellig, 2006; New Millennium Research Council, 2005). First, critics argue
that the justification for government intervention
due to market failure is not warranted. Wireless
broadband is not a public good, in terms of nonexcludability and free-ridership. The costs of
wireless have also been coming down. Second, the
critics claim that the government-run enterprise
would not be as efficient as the private enterprise.
Competition among the private providers would
reduce the costs of wireless broadband services.
Third, opponents claim that municipal wireless
networks will neither bridge the digital divide, nor
will it hold economic development benefits. They
maintain that the digital divide is not due to the
non-availability of free or low-cost broadband.
Business transactions and tourism will also not
rise merely due to wireless provision.
Fourth, the critics maintain that a government enterprise may have incentives to engage in
anti-competitive practices, through below-market
pricing (which will raise rivals’ costs) and legal
or regulatory behaviors. These practices may
distort the wireless market. Fifth, a municipality
could be “locked-in” to an inefficient technology
in the rapidly evolving world of wireless broadband. For example, WiMAX may replace Wi-Fi
as the wireless broadband. Sixth, the provision
of wireless broadband by municipalities involves
risks and uncertainties (Ellig, 2006). Wireless
broadband is not a monopoly service like the
traditional utilities (water, gas, electricity); the
subscribers may be fewer than anticipated. The
wireless networks may cost more than the cities
anticipate, thus straining the already tight budgets
and negatively impacting taxpayers.
Notwithstanding the above criticisms, we
argue that municipalities have a critical role in
providing wireless networks. As Gillett (2006)
argues, the municipalities are unlikely to dominate the roster of wireless broadband operators.
Rather, they have been significant early adopters
of wireless broadband, providing a market toehold for underserved areas and an experimental
testing ground for novel organizational models.
Municipalities could play a catalytic role to facilitate community networks and a complementary
role in the public-private partnerships. If private
providers were to retreat from partnership arrangements, municipalities and other non-profit
partners would have to step in for providing the
networks. In this, local governments could play
different roles: as a user, as a rule-maker, as a
financier, and as an infrastructure developer
(Gillett, Lehr, and Osorio, 2004).
Conclusion
Wireless is likely to be the future of broadband,
as wireless devices have greater degree of flexibility and mobility for field use. The wireless
infrastructure is less expensive than the wired
infrastructure, and provides a suitable alternative
for the last mile solutions. Several wireless technologies have evolved quickly during this century,
the most common choices being medium range,
long range, and hybrid networks. Wi-Fi, Wi-Max,
565
The Wireless City
and Mesh networks represent such technological
alternatives respectively.
Four models of governance arrangements
for the ownership and deployment of wireless
broadband were identified in this chapter. They
include: municipal ownership and deployment;
community ownership and deployment; publicprivate partnerships, and private sector ownership
and deployment. All these models have their
strengths and weaknesses. The municipal and
community models may be suitable for small cities
or targeted neighborhood coverage; these models
are helpful in such contexts where the private
sector may not have enough market incentives to
provide services. The public-private partnerships
are perhaps the most versatile since they provide
a range of arrangements between the public and
private organizations. They also capitalize on the
strengths of the public and the private. The private
provision may be suitable in large cities, where
the private providers have market incentives;
however, the model may not be suitable to achieve
equity goals. Municipalities have a particularly
important role in providing greater broadband
access to address such equity goals and other
problems due to market failure. Critics maintain
that the municipalities should not be involved in
the provision of wireless services. Despite these
criticisms, we argue that municipalities have a
central role to play. Rather than being a luxury,
wireless broadband is a basic communications tool
that is important for digital inclusion, economic
development, public safety, better public services,
education, and so on.
Bar, F. & Park, N. (2006). Municipal Wi-Fi
networks: The goals, practices, and policy implications of the U.S. case. Communications &
Strategies 61(1), 107-124.
References
CTIA-The Wireless Association. (2007). CTIA
Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey, 2007.
Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://files.ctia.
org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Mid_Year_2007.pdf
Balhoff, M. J., & Rowe, R. C. (2005). Municipal broadband: Digging beneath the surface.
Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.
balhoffrowe.com/pdf/Municipal%20Broadband-Digging%20Beneath%20the%20Surface.pdf
566
Botein, M. (2006/07). Regulation of municipal
Wi-Fi. New York Law School Review 51(4), 975989.
Chakraborty, J., & Bosman, M. M. (2005). Measuring the digital divide in the United States: Race,
income, and personal computer ownership. The
Professional Geographer, 57(3), 395-410.
Chang, A., & Kannan, P. K. (2002). Preparing for
wireless and mobile technologies in government.
E-Government Series, IBM Endowment for the
Business of Government.
Coffman, K. G., & Odlyzko, A. M. (2002). Internet growth: Is there a “Moore’s Law” for data
traffic? In J. M. Abello, P. M. Pardalos, and M.
G. C. Resende (Eds.), Handbook of Massive Data
Sets. Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Correa, D. K. (2007). Assessing Broadband in
America: OECD and ITIF Broadband Rankings.
The Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://
www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf
Cowhey, P., J. Aronson, & Richards, J. (2003).
The peculiar evolution of 3G wireless networks:
Institutional logic, politics, and property rights.
In E. Wilson and W. Drake (Eds.), Governing
global electronic networks. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Earle, A. E. (2006). Wireless security handbook.
Boca Raton and New York: Auerbach Publications.
The Wireless City
Ellig, J. (2007). A dynamic perspective on government broadband initiatives. Policy Study
349. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation. Retrieved
January 30, 2008, from http://www.reason.org/
ps349polsum.pdf
Federal Communications Commission. (2007).
High-speed services for Internet access: Status
as of December 31, 2006. Industry Analysis and
Technology Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (2006). Municipal provision of wireless internet. Staff Report.
Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.
ftc.gov/os/2006/10/V060021municipalprovwirelessinternet.pdf
Florida, R. (2003). The rise of the creative class
and how it is transforming work: Leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Gillett, S. E. (2006). Municipal wireless broadband: Hype or harbinger? Southern California
Law Review, 79, 561-593.
Gillett, S. E., Lehr, W. H., & Osorio, C. A. (2004).
Local government broadband initiatives. Telecommunications Policy, 28(8-9), 537-558.
Gillett, S. E., Lehr, W. H., & Osorio, C. A. (2006).
Municipal electric utilities’ role in telecommunications services. Telecommunications Policy,
30(8-9), 464-480.
Horrigan, J. B. (2007). Home broadband adoption 2007. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.
pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband%202007.
pdf
Internet World Stats. (2007). Usage and population
statistics (Broadband internet statistics top world
countries with highest broadband penetration
rate in 2007). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from
http://www.internetworldstats.com/dsl.htm
Jain, A., Mandviwalla, M., & Banker, R. D. (2007).
Governments create universal Internet access?
The Philadelphia municipal wireless network
story. E-Government Series, IBM Endowment for
the Business of Government. Retrieved January
30, 2008, from http://www.businessofgovernment.
org/pdfs/JainBankerReport.pdf
JiWire.com. (2008) Wi-Fi Locations in United
States. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://
www.jiwire.com/browse-hotspot-united-statesus.htm
Lehr, W., & McKnight, L. W. (2003) Wireless
Internet access: 3G vs. WiFi? Telecommunications Policy, 27, 351-370.
Lehr, W. H., Osorio, C. A., Gillett, S. E., & Sirbu,
M. A. (2005, December). Measuring broadband’s
economic impact. Broadband Properties, 1224.
Lehr, W., Sirbu, M., & Gillett, S. (2006). Wireless is changing the policy calculus for municipal
broadband. Government Information Quarterly,
23, 435-453.
Martin, S. P., & Robinson, J. P. (2007). The income
digital divide: Trends and predictions for levels of
Internet Use. Social Problems, 54(1), 1-22.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M.
(2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital
divide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). (2008). Networked nation: Broadband in America 2007. Retrieved
January 30, 2008, from http://www.ntia.doc.
gov/reports/2008/NetworkedNationBroadbandinAmerica2007.pdf
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). (2004). A nation online:
Entering the broadband age. Retrieved January
30, 2008, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/
anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.pdf
567
The Wireless City
New Millennium Research Council. (2005). Not in
the public interest – The myth of municipal Wi-Fi
networks. Washington, D.C. Retrieved January 30,
2008, from http://www.newmillenniumresearch.
org/archive/wifireport2305.pdf
2
Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541 U.S.
125 (2004). The Oyez Project. Retrieved January
30, 2008, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/20002009/2003/2003_02_1238/
Opsahl, A. (2008). Cities use WiMAX to create
Municipal Wireless Networks. Government Technology. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://
www.govtech.com/gt/241661?id=&story_pg=1
Servon, L. J. (2002). Bridging the digital divide:
Technology, community, and public policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Sirbu, M., Lehr, W., & Gillett, S. (2006). Evolving wireless access technologies for municipal
broadband. Government Information Quarterly,
23(3-4), 480-502.
Tapia, A., Maitland, C., & Stone. (2006). Making
IT work for municipalities: Building municipal
wireless networks. Government Information
Quarterly, 23, 359-380.
Urbina, I. (2008, March). Hopes for wireless cities fade as Internet providers pull out. The New
York Times,A1, A10.
Walker, R.W. (2004). Government users are wild
for wireless devices. Government Computer News.
Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.gcn.
com/print/23_20/26652-1.html
endnotes
1
568
Moore’s Law derives from Gordon Moore, a
co-founder of Intel, who predicted as early as
3
1965 that the number of transistors on a microprocessor chip will double approximately
every two years at inexpensive rates.
Lehr, Sirbu, and Gillett (2006, 439), however,
argue that the FCC data overstates broadband coverage since “it does not ensure that
broadband is available throughout the zip
code, is based on a rather anemic definition
of what constitutes broadband (200 kbps
service in at least one direction), and does
not control for either the price or quality of
the offerings available.”
The technologies include:
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), where the signals are broken
up into smaller frequencies for transmission;
hence, even if some signals are interfered
with, others get through without significant
loss of quality.
Dynamic Frequency Selection, where frequency is dynamically selected so that if
interference happens at one frequency, the
signal shifts to another frequency to avoid
interference.
Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation, where, if
interference is detected, more bandwidth
is added for strengthening the signal and
overcome the interference.
Adaptive Antenna Systems (beam forming/
steering), where a narrow beam of signals
is transmitted.
Multiple In/Multiple Out (MIMO) antennas, where multiple antennas are used in
the transmitter and the receiver, so that
transmission can go through other antennas,
even if frequency interference occurs in one
antenna.
Software Defined Radios (SDR), which are
smart antenna for reading the best available
frequency from the spectrum.