Resurrecting muni-WiFi from the rubble left behind
I recently mentioned that the muni-WiFi business is bouncing back in many cities where network operators are working with more sensible business models. So it's interesting that one of today's top stories has to do with a Kansas City company, Computers and Tele-Comm (CTC), looking to resurrect a long-defunct muni-WiFi network in Tempe, Ariz. that never attracted enough customers to create a viable business model and was plagued with signal problems. The network went dark months ago, and the only evidence it existed are those ugly gray boxes and transmitters that sit on top of buildings throughout the city or on light poles.
CTC President and CEO Graeme Gibson explained that his company sees a bargain waiting for a buyer. Currently, the network is owned by the venture capital firm Commonwealth Capital. CTC is willing to spend some $1.3 million on the network and spend another $1.4 million to get the network going again.
"This is a million-dollar house that's on sale for $138,000," Gibson told the East Valley Tribune. CTC operates various WiFi networks in Kansas City and in Hilton and Hyatt hotels. Still, CTC wants concessions from the city, such as lowering rent on the city's light poles.
I wonder if the city will bite or turn down CTC's plan. Many cities are ready to move on from their muni-WiFi failures, but then again, they need to find some use for those boxes. In other words, they have hardware assets sitting around unused. Portland, which was abandoned by MetroFi, hasn't found another taker, and has some 600 WiFi antennas around the city that MetroFi has promised to take down but has yet to do. Could we actually see another round of companies coming in looking to resurrect muni-WiFi at a fraction of previous costs?--Lynnette
Comments (3) | Post a comment
Comments
Posted by Michael Finneran | August 18, 2008 - 11:05am
Mr. Gibson is still pushing the same ill-considered argument that got started the muni-WiFi debacle. The truth of the matter is that the cost of building a network is insignificant when compared to the cost of running a network. Unless you can attract customers and provide a service that is competitive and can turn a profit, you lose. So to build on that $138,000 for a $1,000,000 house analogy, you're looking at a house that needs a new roof, furnace, and air conditioning system, and after that, the property taxes are $100,000 per year- and by the way, it's next door to a toxic waste dump.
Posted by Anonymous | August 20, 2008 - 9:25am
A couple of things have changed with time:
1. We now have cheaper outdoor wireless devices available
2. The penetration and usage of internet has increased.
Keeping this in might what seemed a distant reality earlier might be a truth today.
Posted by Roger Burtner | August 18, 2008 - 5:26pm
This may be an opportunity for a municipality or one of its institutions to inexpensively obtain the equipment that it can use to create hotspots in key areas such as a downtown, recreational areas, or key traffic corridors and transportation centers. Other areas that should be considered are business parks and school campuses. None of these require the sale of subscriptions, billing and extensive technical support. Service would be free and perhaps supported by sponsors and minimal advertising. The cost to run these types of systems is very low.
