$60/month for the MODEM? What the hell kind of modem are they having you use, BlueNote? I get Comcast's modem AND the service for $42 a month.

I get Comcast's modem AND the service for $42 a month.

So did I, until my 6 month introductory period ended. Now it's up to $95 per month.

Whoops, I guess that $95 also includes expanded basic cable TV.

Anybody who thought this would reliably replace paid home or office access wasn't paying attention. The universal experience of cities installing municipal wi-fi has been a delicate balancing act with the local pay providers, to make sure the free service wasn't robust enough (a) to induce anyone to stop paying, and/or (b) to support a city's worth of users. It's an urban amenity, not a public utility. I personally would be happy if it worked in places of public accommodation where they charge through the nose for connectivity. (Is there any truth to the rumor that Starbucks is busy building Faraday cages around all their locations?)

Did you expect them to permit Portland to install a system that would replace Comcast?

Actually, that was the original point -- not to build an "urban amenity", but rather to provide an alternative to Comcast and Qwest. Remember, this wi-fi project grew out of the battles that the City was having with the broadband monopolists.

If I recall correctly, the original plan was to charge $10-15/month and make it accessible indoors... But somewhere along the way, the concept shifted from providing a competitive alternative to building an "urban amenity." But Metro-Fi cheaped out, and they haven't been held accountable.

(And the notion that you can't make an outdoor node work inside is stupid. I can access the indoor wi-fi nodes of five of my neighbors down the street.)

I understand that City wants to run parking meters and infosigns - but MetroFi's business model requires eyeballs to look at ads... so why are they failing to provide wi-fi access where eyeballs actually want it?

And it doesn't even work with the parking meters. It's a total fiasco. MetroFi collapse or Microsoft buyout: within this calendar year, probably in the next six months.

Can I venture a guess? If you can buy a box for $120 and thereafter have free monthly access, after a few months you'll break even compared to a commercial broadband service. So after that point, it's a win, no?

Yes. MetroFi's model is analagous to broadcast TV. You buy the TV/computer. You buy the antenna/bridge. They provide the "broadcast" paid for by advertising. You may think it's not the way they should have gone but it's hard to argue there's no precedent for thinking that it might be successful. The market situation is different, of course, but even so, the idea is not at all absurd on the face of it despite its being portrayed that way by some.

Personal Telco works by convincing businesses and citizens to pay for Internet connections and then give away access to them via Wi-Fi for free. That works fine in limited areas, especially areas where businesses see a business advantage in doing so, but Personal Telco has been around for a number of years and they have provided access to a very, very small portion of the city. Personal Telco has few financial resources and was never an option to be a partner to provide access to 95% of the city. Remember, the city is not paying for the installation of this network, MetroFi is.

BTW, lousy service, exorbitant prices and the advent of digital television and web video have pushed/lured me away from cable back to broadcast TV. I'm enjoying the TV experience a lot more and a couple of months of not paying Comcast saves me more than enough money to buy one of MetroFi's bridges. If the MetroFi connection with bridge works half as well as my Silver Sensor and HDTV, I'll seriously consider kissing Qwest goodbye also.

Then I'll use some of the money I save to support my ongoing personal efforts to get computers and Wi-Fi connections to public places and people who can't afford them/don't have the expertise to set them up. MetroFi's netowrk will make that orders of magnitude more doable.

Gil,

Personal Telco has no capacity to build a city-wide network and did not submit a proposal. It's possible that MetroFi will not be able to do what they said they would do. It's certain that Personal Telco could not.

Some business is subsidizing that Personal Telco node for reasons of their own. Nothing about MetroFi's network keeps Personal Telco from continuing to do what they have been doing.

In fact, Personal Telco could help people use the MetroFi ad-supported network in the same way they are helping people to use privately purchased DSL connections if they chose to. The users would have to accept ads but no one would have to be persuaded to pay a monthly fee for the connection.

They took the bid of Microsoft and friends over the bids of companies who'd actually done it before and made it work, IIRC.

That's wrong on every count. Microsoft was not involved when the contract was awarded. MetroFi is the only company that submitted a proposal that had working municipal networks up and running.

Gil wrote So I see one of those cylinders on a telephone pole at around 14th, I think, and park within plain view of it. Fire up the laptop, and there is MetroFi coming in strong, but I can't make the connection for some reason. Someone later told me, "Your computer can see it, but it can't see your computer."

And you're not the first person to report that phenomenon - which doesn't make any damned sense.

It's possible the MetroFi "network" is functioning exactly as the City expected, but if it is, the City did a terrible job of managing the process. Everyone expected to be able to sign up FOR FREE as long as they were willing to put up with the ads. That was the trade-off, not having to buy a booster.

I don't know what the intention was, but the result looks like a boondoggle.

Two things, Jeff:

1. I have many ongoing issues with how the city almost always fails to communicate effectively with the citizenry. This is just another example, not an exception. I think it's the biggest problem city government has. As far as I can tell, no one is in charge of that and it shows. The PR people who flack for the bureaus are all about process and not at all about content.

2. It is way to early to talk about "the result" of this project. It is in its very beginning stages still.

Aaargh!

I was in Portland on business recently. I stayed in the Red Lion at the Convention Center. I did so because in the past they had internet in my room.

Well? Their in house wireless would not work.

Their answer? Hook up to the free city WiFi.

Now I know why THAT was not working either. Ugh...

Lesson learned? I'll never stay at a Red Lion again.

Repeat after me: City money is not building the MetroFi network. MetroFi investors are building the MetroFi network. If money is evaporating, it's money belonging to those investors, not us taxpayers.

Kari, you are right. No matter what the city says at this point, part of the deal was not that you would not be able to connect with your laptop if you are outside reasonably near a pole with good line of sight--an experience that I have had myself. I know city technology folks took laptops and tested MetroFi's existing municipal networks in CA and that was not their experience there. Keep in mind they are still installing and testing--some poles that have equipment on them may not be fully functional or even turned on at all at any given time.

There were two privately financed models for a municipal network available to Portland:

1. MetroFi's ad-based access which has a fairly high probability of needing a booster for indoor residential access but has no ongoing monetary costs to users.

2. A fee-based subscription network costing $20+/month per user. Some people might require a booster in some residential neighborhoods even so, but presumably fewer than under the MetroFi model.

Alternatively, it would be possible to build and maintain a network using some multiple of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and either make it free to users or make it available for a fee--how likely you are to need a booster indoors depending directly on how many tens of millions you want to spend. No one seems to like the model where you use taxpayer money and charge a fee. City government did not consider a free taxpayer underwritten network politically viable. Anyone reading this blog should understand very well why.

I have to agree with Jack Bogdanski on this one: this is another example of a badly oversold project on the part of the City. Doretta makes some of the same points, although she is right to note that City money is not being spent (although city property is being used, so there may be opportuinity costs here).

I'm going to draft a posting in a few days summarizing the recent lecture at Reed. He had a great reform proposal: increase our city council to 11 members and draw districts.

As long as we continue to elect one mayor and four "mini" mayors, we'll lack good oversight and have continued schemes like this.