WiFi Gains Strength in Cities

Over the past three years, large cities and rural towns promised to bring WiFi to every street corner, park bench and doorstep. The wireless service was to be the key to extending cheap Internet access to underserved areas and low-income neighborhoods.

But the efforts largely fell flat as Internet service providers abandoned the projects, which proved to be far more expensive than expected, leaving cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago -- as well as Alexandria and Arlington -- disconnected and discontent.

Many municipalities decided to move forward by investing in the technology themselves. The souring economy has further encouraged some cities to experiment with building their own networks as a way to spur economic development.

"The projects that are succeeding focus on government first," said Craig Settles, an independent wireless analyst and business consultant. "The cost to build the infrastructure is paid back with benefits for the government. If you want to expand beyond that, you don't need as many consumers to make the network profitable."

Having a stake in the network means police officers, building inspectors and paramedics, for example, can access the network while working in the field, and the government can sell excess capacity to residents and businesses. Some communities are providing free WiFi to attract shops and offices to slumping areas.

Such experiments come as federal officials try to shape broadband policies. The United States has fallen behind other countries in terms of broadband speed and reach, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international organization.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin yesterday won approval to use empty TV airwaves for wireless broadband, a proposal backed by Google and Microsoft. Martin also wants to use another section of airwaves to provide free, filtered Internet access. Sprint Nextel and Clearwire recently launched WiMax service in Baltimore, with promises to provide wireless service for mobile devices.

While these projects are getting off the ground, WiFi networks are the most feasible way to provide an alternative to typical DSL or cable Internet lines, said Esme Vos, editor of MuniWireless.com. "It is probably the easiest way to get competition as quickly as possible."

WiFi networks, most often used in coffee shops and airports, beam Internet service through a building by connecting many transmitters, or hot spots. A citywide network would cobble together enough hot spots to cover every block.

The push to drench cities with cheap wireless service began in 2005, when Philadelphia officials announced plans to bring Internet service to everyone within 130 square miles. Earthlink, an Internet service provider, pledged to build the sprawling network and reap revenue from subscriptions, and the city was to let the company erect WiFi transmitters, or hot spots, on buildings and lamp posts. A dozen other cities enthusiastically made similar plans.

But the build-out process was slow and costly. A WiFi hot spot has a short signal range, so a few thousand, rather than initial estimates of a few dozen, were needed to blanket entire cities. And the service was often less reliable than the Internet service many residents already paid for at home, so they were reluctant to pay an additional subscription fee. A year ago, Earthlink pulled out of projects across the country. Other companies, such as MetroFi and Gobility, did the same. Cities from San Francisco and Houston to Portland, Ore., and Tempe, Ariz., stopped expanding or halted service.

The profit-making model was the main cause of the failures, said Sascha Meinrath, technology analyst for the New America Foundation, a District-based research organization.