Toledo Wi-Fi Debate

"There is still a lot to be done in WiMAX," he said. "One of the reasons that-Wi-Fi mesh and Wi-Fi hotspots make sense is that there are literally hundreds of millions of devices today that are imbedded with this technology."

David Robinson, vice-president of business implementations for Rogers Communications, counters that over the long haul, WiMAX is simply the better technology for outdoor use, so there is little point in municipalities pursuing Wi-Fi.

"Wi-Fi was built to be an indoor LAN extension for a few hundred feet. There are a limited number of non-overlapping channels. This is not a flaw that has to be fixed-- this is a design feature."

Maybe so, but the fact is that present WiMAX offerings require either a portable modem dependent on its own power source (as in Sympatico Unplugged and Rogers Portable Internet) or, in the case of Bell WiMAX in Home, a fixed modem.

"You can't use those services in a park. You need to walk around with a modem looking for a place to plug in," says Dave Dobbin, president of Toronto Hydro Telecom.

Toronto Hydro Telecom's Dobbin feels there is room for both technologies. "There are places where WiMAX makes more sense than Wi-Fi," he says, "specifically low-density metropolitan areas. This is not a technology argument, this is an adoption argument," says Dobbin. "We deployed the first large scale Wi-Fi metropolitan network in North America, and most devices are now pre-packed with Wi-Fi."

Robinson, who agrees that this is not necessarily an either-or discussion, nonetheless stresses that at the end of the day it's the long-term appropriateness of a given technology that has to be assessed. "Infrastructure investments are capital-intensive," he says. "Wi-Fi is ideal for what it was designed for: indoor WLAN extensions. Providing a carrier-grade network is a different proposition. We can't charge people for a service that degrades in the middle of a building."

Mobile WiMax isn’t yet mobile; Wi-Fi is. WiMax in Canada is enormously more expensive in this pre-standard version: C$45 to C$65 per month; Toronto’s Wi-Fi, C$29. Only problem? Toronto’s Wi-Fi network hasn’t increased in area for some time, and the head of the company, quoted in this article extolling Wi-Fi, fails to mention its tiny size.

Haas noted via email that MetroFi has been working towards anchor commitments by cities for nearly two years, but the inertia of those early networks led municipalities to reject those options. In Toledo, where MetroFi had negotiated an anchor commitment, a change in administration led a new mayor to retreat from the plan.

MetroFi will sell its networks, but plans to shutter if there are no buyers. MetroFi was one of the three most prominent pure play metro-scale Wi-Fi firms.

MetroFi’s chief Chuck Haas [said] his firm has decided that they will sell their networks in nine cities, including their first cities in the Bay Area (Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale), and their largest muni deployment in Portland, Ore. If no buyers emerge—including the cities in question—Haas said that MetroFi would have a shutdown plan for gradually unlighting the networks.

MetroFi was the only major firm to back ad-supported no-fee access, coupled with paid, no-ads service, and higher tiered commercial offerings. They built mostly smaller cities, with Portland being their only real big city win. The firm began with the notion of building Wi-Fi out gradually as a way to provide broadband in communities that lacked service, with no municipal involvement. That plan required sparser networks and typically a home signal booster designed by SkyPilot.

Is there a future for metro-scale Wi-Fi? Yes. With thoughtfully constructed, outdoor-focused deployments centered on municipal purposes, with public access a secondary issue, it seems like these networks could still provide an inexpensive way for relatively high bandwidth compared to the alternative of cell data networks.

However, that advantage is likely short lived in larger markets. The near-future certainty now that there will be multiple provides offering wired broadband speed service starting later this year with Sprint/Clearwire’s WiMax, and continuing through into 2012 with significant network buildout by Verizon and AT&T in several bands (including their new 700 MHz holdings).

It’s possible that in the long term, looking five years out, that Wi-Fi on a metro-scale will only be needed in small towns, odd markets, and for highly particular purposes.

It seemed like such a good idea - Internet for everyone, everywhere. So much so that cities across the United States announced plans for citywide Wi-Fi networks in an excited chorus starting in the early 2000s. But in the last few years, most cities' plans to provide Internet access through a wireless network have fallen flat, deflated by shortcomings in technology and financial woes. This spring, Silicon Valley became the latest casualty of the Wi-Fi flop.

Citywide Wi-Fi access seemed brimming with potential a few years ago. Proponents said a free service, or at least one that offered both free and premium options, could help poorer communities reap Web-based benefits. It would democratize the Internet, they said. Others dreamt of improved business or city services, or just offering residents another Internet provider. And simply put, the idea was downright nifty. While privacy concerns or doubts about practical implementation surfaced, many embraced the idea of ubiquitous Internet. In the evolution of the wired world, it seemed like the next step.

Yet citywide Wi-Fi ultimately fell prey to both technological and fiscal maladies, just like the adage that there's no such thing as a free lunch.