One of the benefits besides democratizing access, bridging the digital divide, etc. of WiFi was that it would improve efficiency and accountability for city services. L&I, Health Inspectors, Streets Dep't, etc. would be able to access the web on the go and WiFi was going to allow these departments to do more "on the road".

Coupled with CitiStat, WiFi could have potentially issued in a new age of city services. So while the demise of the deal with EarthLink is a loss for democratizing access, its also a loss for "good government".

-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

A rough estimate of what it will cost to purchase the existing hardware and take over the operation of the system is some where around $20,000,000. This is no small purchase in a city where services and amenities such as swimming pools and reasonable library hours are already trimmed to the bone. Additionally, in the year that the wifi effort has existed, the actual sign ups by poor folks have been very low.

The reason this network is falling apart is because it was a concept and not a plan. Saving the network at a possible cost of $20,000,000 won't change that problem. We need a serious cost/benefit analysis of having this system (the municipal wifi concept is outmoded and has been abandoned by cities all around the globe).

I think it is vital that we clear up some misinformation which is floating on this site. It will not cost the city 20 million dollars to save the network. I don't know where that number came from (except that it cost Earthlink 17 million to build it at 80% build-out) but it is not based in the reality of the situation. The previous deal (that fell through) did not have the city paying up front for the network at all, but rather had the city using the network for its own services and consequently being an important customer of the service which would help anchor the business model. This actually would save the city money in the long run because Verizon and Comcast services are extremely expensive. Moreover Earthlink is motivated to give this network away for free and even throw in some money to boot and yearly operational costs from what I heard come in around 3 million, so there is no 20 million dollar expense here in any shape or form.

More importantly, in a city where at least 25% live in poverty and only 30% own a computer the wireless network would get people across the city the opportunity to be online. This is vital as Verizon and Comcast are not motivated to offer a service that all Philadelphians can afford. Currently people wait two to three hours at local libraries to get on the Internet for 30 minutes. But they wait because they severely need the service. They need the Internet to apply for jobs, apply to college, get vital information about health and their community. They need the Internet to have the full set of rights which come come along with the information based society we will increasingly live within. No one is arguing that the Philly WiFi initiative is the silver bullet for this issue or that the city has to treat Philly WiFi like a public utility that it solely runs, but the city does need to have the vision to recognize the importance of this issue and take leadership in finding a solution. If this administration does not have a focus and commitment to digital inclusion we will likely fall behind in education, economic development and other central issues.

The other point I would like to make is that cities across the globe are not abandoning municipal wireless systems or other tactics for getting community members online. There are many different models around the country and world. From South Korea, which because of government intervention has almost 90% of its residents online to interesting systems sprouting up in San Francisco, Boston, Minneapolis, Corpus Christi Texas and many others. These cities understand that with increased broadband access communities have higher educational attainment, they are more civically engaged and economic development co-occurs with broadband access. Along with these facts, the Internet will have enormous impact on the way politics and organizing is done in the coming years and cities without access for all residents will be cities with a less politically engaged community.

For these reasons MMP and other leaders around the city think it is vital to keep pressure on Mayor Nutter to have the vision to lead this city into the future regarding communication rights. The first step in that is to call him tomorrow and demand he stop earthlink from dismantling a 20 million dollar network, and then MMP is having a forum to begin to consider other possibilities.

basically, Earthlink had a contract with the city. The contract was in many ways to the city's benefit. Earthlink has totally, shamelessly, broken the contract.

If there is blood to get from that stone, the city should fight for it, aggressively. That is, the city should fight to get any damages it is entitled to and realistically able to get from Earthlink's failing to hold up its end of the deal.

That's a bit separate from the question of what should happen with the existing infrastructure.

Democratizing access to the internet surely should be a significant goal for the city, but whether taking over the wireless network is the way to do that is not at all clear.

Several posters have suggested we walk away from the Earthlink infrastructure to build our own, community-controlled grassroots hot spot. That's a fine model that has been used in NC, parts of IL, and certainly in other nations, absent government involvement in a larger initiative. But why should we start from scratch when we have $17 million in equipment sitting there? Why can't we save that stuff from the scrap heap, and have it maintained and controlled by people that live in and care about this community?

Sure, the technology deployed by Earthlink has some technical kinks. But there are always solutions to technical problems, and the success in other cities proves that. The question is whether any group or institution wants to find or pay for those solutions. Earthlink and the Nutter Administration have refused to engage community groups on this issue, so I don't believe either has done enough to identify those who we need to take a leadership role.

If Mayor Nutter allows Earthlink to take their marbles and go home, we will yet again demonstrate to the nation what it means to Pull A Philly: blow a really good thing because we choked when it counted.

And I think it bears repeating that we should not be choosing between rec centers and Internet access. No one questions that people deserve access to clean water, affordable heat and a decent education. We shouldn't question whether they also deserve access to a tool that has the potential to lift them out of poverty, which is affordable access and equipment to connect to the Internet.

In case you needed to be reminded:

A new report released yesterday by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development again notes that the US ranked 15th out of the 30 member nations in broadband penetration -- down from 12th place in 2006, and continuing its slide from fourth place in 2001.

From Free Press: http://www.freepress.net/node/40052
And here's the OECD data: http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_33703_38690102_1_1_1_1,00...

OK, let's everyone go back to sitting on our hands and waiting for Comcast and Verizon to save us. It's too hard to fix problems like getting people on the Internet.

I am about to make my call to the mayor. Didn't the PW put the total number of 2007 sign ups at 7,000?

I heard the number was closer to 10k but not sure. WP has signed up a little over 1000 low income folks.

In one of these threads, MMP or someone mentioned a joint workshop or roundtable or people talking today in conjunctions with Temple's communications college. Any more specific info? Time, location? I haven't aggressively searched it out, but I've only been able to find mentions of a date. Is this happening.

Otherwise, I appreciate Hannah and Beth's responses in this thread. I don't know how YPP handles "old" threads (seems in practice the community chimes in to "topic of the day" with little long tail unless there's a troll battle going on) but if I can't find the aforementioned event, maybe I'll speak more of my mind here.