Recently, I had to check email on the go. I was walking down Broadway St. in Cambridge, and I had my laptop with me. I sat down on the street corner, fired it up, and was online in a flash without paying a cent. How geekily liberating.

The idea of free wireless internet access in Cambridge is exciting, but a large-scale deployment isn’t here yet. When I checked my email, I wasn’t using a city wifi network, I was just “stealing” wireless from someone living nearby. The Cambridge Public Internet project, a municipal "mesh" network, may soon provide a way for me to be an honest mobile netizen. The convenience of on-the-go access is not the primary goal of the project, however, it's just a useful side effect. The focus of the initiative is on minimizing the digital divide.

Cambridge’s Information Technology Department, working with other city departments, MIT, Harvard, and the Museum of Science, intends “to blanket Cambridge with free basic-level wireless access”, according to a recent city newsletter. So, how’s that going? A survey by MuniWireless.com released at the end of 2006 lists the status of municipal wireless in Cambridge as “deploying”. The City’s website says there's a “usable pilot expected later in 2006 and into 2007”. The installation of access points on select city buildings has taken place, and although public wifi is already available at most municipal buildings, the city’s senior centers and libraries, the stated goal is to provide much greater coverage. The deployment will happen in phases and the City has prioritized delivering service to subsidized and low-income housing areas. Students in Cambridge’s schools are also a target. City Councilor Henrietta Davis, who initiated the discussion on municipal wifi at the City level, stresses her goal of “making sure that every ninth grader has a laptop and Internet access by September 2007.”

The Cambridge plan involves using existing city infrastructure, and MIT internet backbone, combined with open-standard mesh networking tools developed at MIT as part of their RoofNet initiative. (The RoofNet wiki is clear that they are not involved directly in building the city network, it is MIT Information Services that is the partner.) Don’t expect broadband speeds, however. The Chief Information Officer for the City, Mary Hart, expects this system to deliver basic-level bandwidth sufficient to send e-mails and browse the Web, but not robust enough for streaming video or downloading photos. An article on the subject in a Fall ’06 city newsletter states- “It is the City’s goal to provide a WiFi connection that will supplement, not compete with, the products and services of commercial interests…” So, connection speed may run neck-and-neck with dial-up in a race for slowest possible Web experience, but the upside is that it’s supposed to be free and will guarantee a minimum level of access for those who otherwise could not afford it.

Cities around the country (and world) are in various stages of municipal wireless deployment. In the U.S. alone, there are currently over 300 communities with, or actively working on, public wireless networks. Some cities, including San Francisco, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Alexandria, VA, are moving ahead on partnerships with large companies like EarthLink (which is making a major push into muni wireless). These plans involve varying funding mechanisms for build-out and maintenance: public money, private money, ad-revenue, and/or subscription fees. Meanwhile many community groups have set up low- or no-cost networks within cities. Big internet service providers see community and municipal wireless as lost market share. Due to rapidly evolving technology (look out for the WiMAX standard), the large number of interested parties, and varying degrees of political vision and will, no two cities’ wireless internet rollouts will look exactly the same, and the differences are not superficial.

Locally, a comparison between Boston and Cambridge raises interesting questions. After staying mum on the subject for a while and missing a major event and report release by Councilor Tobin, The Boston Foundation, and the Museum of Science on the future of wireless internet in Boston, Hizzoner Menino has thrown his weight behind wireless deployment. His task force produced both an excellent report and an innovative proposal for solving the muni wifi puzzle. Boston’s plan calls for a non-profit to be tapped to raise funds for, manage construction of, and maintain the city’s wireless network. This non-profit would then sell bandwidth at a cheap, wholesale rate to established providers, startup ISPs, non-profits, and other entrepreneurs who would then add value in the form of other services and support before reselling to the end-user. It appears that end-users would also be allowed to directly purchase access at the wholesale rate.

The task force’s recommendations seem to strike a pragmatic balance between city oversight and free market competition, as well as avoiding public spending for deployment while still keeping end-user access costs low. The intermediary of the non-profit, answering to a mandate from the city, accomplishes (in theory) this balance. It’s interesting to note that when the City of Boston’s goals for the project are listed, “Promoting economic development and stimulating innovation” comes first, ahead of bridging the digital divide and improving city services.

Cambridge’s plan explicitly avoids competing with major providers because it does not aim to provide broadband connection speeds. It is a different model, and although certainly less ambitious and more piecemeal, it does one thing the Boston plan does not: provide free wifi to residents. There also seems to be more of a focus on digital divide issues, and there is a committee set up to work on the issue. Providing free access is great, but there are still many who need instruction on how to take advantage of their internet access, and we see that first-hand at CCTV on daily basis.

Time will tell how the plans for municipal wireless internet will play out both on a global and national scale, and locally. In addition to Boston and Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, and other surrounding communities are also working on their own versions of wifi deployment. One common thread that runs through a seemingly endless variety of plans for municipal wireless is that cities should be providing some form of internet access to their residents, and wielding some degree of control over pricing.

I will revisit this topic at a later date, perhaps by doing a field test of some of the City access points and taking notes. In the meantime, let me know if you have any comments, questions, or corrections!