NorthernLiberties.org - A Community Bulletin Board - Northern Liberties, Philadelphia

HK_Newbie

IP: 192.91.173.36

May 14, 08 - 9:17 AM

earthlink shutting down

Well, this sucks for anyone using them. It was an interesting project, and I've used the free wi-fi in a few parks in the city.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080513-philadelphias-municipal-wifi-network-to-go-dark.html

Brian

IP: 198.137.214.33

May 14th, 2008 - 9:50 AM

Re: earthlink shutting down

I'm not too sad about this project failing. In my opinion, the city has no business getting involved with providing internet service. I mean, did they get involved to provide telephone service? Cable TV? No. Do I feel better that my tax dollars are not going to pay for the ability of some boy in North Philly to surf porn or play online video games? Indeed.

To me this just seemed like another John Street boondoggle.

Small Government!!!

lutton

IP: 71.242.96.203

May 14th, 2008 - 10:14 AM

Re: earthlink shutting down

C'mon, Brian. This project was designed right up the small-governement alley: outsourcing to private enterprise. Of course, like so many other projects under the Street Admin, there were hidden costs, questionable appointments, and poor oversight.

Properly run, this concept should be a boon for large municipalities: private companies should be able to pay a franchise fee for the right to service us.

Jordan

IP: 70.20.226.192

May 14th, 2008 - 11:35 AM

Re: earthlink shutting down

Brian,

Because only residents of North Philly surf porn or play online video games? I bet half of the people reading the message board right now are at work.

Your statement was incredibly ignorant. The internet is a powerful tool for job hunting, keeping in contact with colleagues, and for education. Those of us with access to it have a huge advantage over those who cannot afford it.

It was a great idea but poorly executed. I hope the Nutter Administration finds a way to help the poor get connected.

Brian

IP: 198.137.214.33

May 14th, 2008 - 12:03 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

As always, Jordan, thanks for setting me straight. I had no idea that there were beneficial things on the internet. How insightful. Now it all makes sense.

So back to the point. Aren't telephones useful? And even cable TV? Does that mean the city should be involved in dispersing access to these media? Well, it hasn't. So, why is internet access any different?

Unlike you, I guess I just don't feel charitable in this regard. If you think you need to provide funds to the underpriviledged to gain unfettered access to the internet, so be it. As for me, I don't. Plus, they can still go to the free library, right?

Let's at least admit that there are two sides to this issue, and try not to be so righteous.

Jordan

IP: 70.20.226.192

May 14th, 2008 - 1:03 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

Brian,

From talking to you, you would think the problem with this country is that the poor have too much and the wealthy don't have enough...

Kent

IP: 166.20.24.144

May 14th, 2008 - 1:32 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

It's not "free" if your taxes are paying for it.

But was the service actually free? I could have sworn I heard it was all going to be free, but then I started getting flyers in my door for buying WiFi access from Earthlink for a monthly fee. Didn't seem free at that point. It is a shame that it won't be there for paying customers who don't want to go down the road of DSL or cable modem, but it sounds like it just wasn't profitable for Earthlink.

The doh moment of the article: "EarthLink claims it was going transfer the network to the city of Philadelphia for free (as well as donate the WiFi equipment), but blames the conclusion of this months-long drama on the city's inability to get its act together."

lutton

IP: 71.242.96.203

May 14th, 2008 - 2:15 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

>>nd even cable TV? Does that mean the city should be involved in dispersing access to these media?

Do you even know what your talking about?!?

The city regulates via franchise (and charges money for said franchise) cable TV. But the end customer pays for it!

It was the same set up for Wireless Philadelphia. People paid Earthlink (or other provides who piggybacked on the Earthlink system) for internet access. Some households were eligible for discount service, which Earthlink figured they could cover with enough full-cost subscribers.

It was entirely designed as zero-cost to the city (although in true John Street fashion, that administration did manage to stick taxpayers with some staff people under the radar for a while).

The concept is reasonable, but obviously the business plan was not sound. I'd also blame poor marketing and immature technology as part of the problem.

Now that Earthlink cannot or will not run the system, and keeping the system operable would in fact cost taxpayers money, the system is being shuttered. Exactly as it should be.

But there is not nor ever was some welfare queen driving around in her caddy downloading her porn with free tax payer funded wifi!

Brian

IP: 198.137.214.33

May 14th, 2008 - 2:17 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

Jordan, I'm sure that you'd be glad to know that my position is hardly as you suppose. I do believe that the gap between affluent and poor is far too vast and that the affluent are OBLIGATED to subsidize the poor in many aspects.

The point at hand though is whether this venture was illconceived from the start. I contend so. This is not a case where the money from the affluent would be wisely utilized. It's romantic to think that, but sorry to say, it ain't so. And I resent paying for it.

As is often the case, my point can be succintly summarized by a vague Simpson's reference: Monorail

Side point: I would scarely content that you are talking to me, nor I to you. In any case, I am always happy to meet up with neighbors. This is an interesting topic to me. I don't claim to be any definitive source, but I have opinions, and I am always open to hearing alternative, intelligently-posed (and, I hope, unbiased) points of view.

VC

IP: 151.197.238.193

May 14th, 2008 - 2:34 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

Brian, you've made some rash generalizations about the people who would potentially be downloading free porn. I find it to be a bit offensive.

I am not one of the "kids from North Philly", yet I was planning on taking full advantage of the free porn. You may find it hard to believe, but white, middle aged men like myself are also capable of being savvy porn consumers.

I don't think that access to porn will give anyone an advantage over those who do not have equal access, but there is no doubt that porn is extremely useful.

lutton

IP: 71.242.96.203

May 14th, 2008 - 2:49 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

>>Let's at least admit that there are two sides to this issue,

Yes, reality and Brian's world.

>>It's not "free" if your taxes are paying for it.

It wasn't free and our taxes didn't (or weren't supposed to) pay for it.

>>Unlike you, I guess I just don't feel charitable in this regard.

You sound so desperate to deny charity, that you imagine it where it doesn't exist!

Oh and by the way, props to Philly -- the wireless I signed into was, while not free, public wifi.

See, even liberal political bloggers at Obama rallies pay for it!

The fact is, the city was to have been compensated, both financially and with internet access, in return for allowing Earthlink to operate the system here. In addition, that internet access could have been further leveraged to reduce costs and improve efficiency of various city agencies.

The bottom line should have been a net positive for city coffers, had the system been built with the right technology, promoted correctly and operated well.

Yet because some "underpriviledged" "boy in North Philly" might gain some (non-taxpayer funded) benefit, you'd turn all that away.

Brian

IP: 198.137.214.33

May 14th, 2008 - 7:04 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

I am in the same boat as Kent. I remember this service being touted as free initially. If that has changed or was never the case, then my point of view is altered. I am taking your words as facts on this, lutton, so back off a bit, OK?

I still don't think the city should have been involved like it was. Did they get involved when every tele company in the world wanted to build cell towers everywhere? Isn't that nearly the same thing? What am I missing? Why couldn't capitalism cure this obvious need? What was the market inefficiency that caused the government to intervene? Seriously, inform me please.

And please try to disabuse yourself from any bias due the case that you might have gotten some use out the service.

nlguy

IP: 76.99.25.36

May 14th, 2008 - 7:53 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

The city did get involved with the cell towers. They lease space at the tops of public buildings to the tele companies, best spots went to highest payers.

Kent

IP: 72.94.65.58

May 14th, 2008 - 8:19 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

I could have sworn it was *planned* to be free... quick google turns up a bunch of articles about its intention and demise.

from 2005:
http://www.gcn.com/print/24_6/35315-1.html
The act forbids any “political subdivision” or entity created by one—such as a local government or government-created nonprofit—from providing any telecommunications service to the public for a fee. At the time, Philadelphia’s plan was for free WiFi service, but the city also had said it might charge a small fee as it rolled out the network citywide.

Intersting number from ABC news yesterday:
The company has 5,942 subscribers in Philadelphia out of a projected minimum of 100,000, according to its lawsuit. EarthLink said it is losing up to $200,000 a month operating the network because subscriber fees covered less than half of costs.

Ouch.... only 6k subscribers? It's definitely no wonder they are pulling out.

For me, there seem to be two pricing issues:
1. If you have a landline, for $20 you can get DSL and set up your own wireless LAN in your house.... this is probably a more reliable solution for people who don't use their laptops around town. (This is what I do.)

2. The main competition for $20 WiFi is probably just using your neighbors wifi for free. If you live in a well-off densely populated area or big apartment building, there are probably at least a handful of open wireless networks you can just use for free.

I love the Internet as much as the next guy, but many cities have been trying to jump on the municipal WiFi bandwagon since Philly, and it hasn't been a rousing success in many places (if it doesn't work out in San Fran, I don't see how it is going to work out here).#333

Brian

IP: 69.253.133.31

May 14th, 2008 - 9:49 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

Yes the city does lease space for towers, but this is far different from what seems to be more like a partnership with Earthlink. The city was much more entrenched in the WiFi project. And that's probably one of the reasons why it failed.

lutton

IP: 76.99.23.221

May 15th, 2008 - 4:02 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

Regarding any free service, the only aspects I see were some free hotspots around high profile public areas: Love Park, Ben Franklin Parkway, etc. And while I haven't reviewed specific documents, the impression I got was that these free hotspots would be made available by the provider as a condidtion of securing a 'franchise' to service the city. This is akin to the public access channels and studios (which Comcast managed to avoid providing for years, perhaps decades, although they were legally required to build/provide such studios).

If there were original aspirations to provide permanent free wireless internet access - for anyone or just a 'select' few - that idea did not fly in the real world.

And if you decided that the whole project was wrong based on that assumption which was never part of the actual agreement you're guilty of judging the book by its cover.

BTW, I'm in the position of having used their network - although I did some research and discovered a good deal through an independant provider (wi-phi.com) which piggybacked on the earthlink network - but not as my main provider. Here in NL, I've utilized Verizon DSL and Comcast cable internet.

Overall, at the end of this whole venture, I see these problems: First, and probably worst, a terrible plan to promote the service and attact full-pay customers - the whole project was predicated on enough full-pay customers; second, a technology based project both ahead and behind the technology curve - now we have all the major wireless companies offering the Fed millions of dollars for bandwidth to blanket us in wireless net access; and third, a negative attitude that some "underpriviledged" "boy in North Philly" might be getting something for less than full price.

Albert Golden

IP: 199.0.186.33

May 16th, 2008 - 5:14 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

I worked for a company that bid on the WiFi project against Earthlink. When Earthlink got it, we all cheered since their business model was bound to fail. Our model (and others who lost out) was profitable - something Street didn't want for his business partner. No surprise there... he likes to keep it in the family.

Jordan

IP: 70.20.226.192

May 16th, 2008 - 5:23 PM

Re: earthlink shutting down

Isn't Earthlink owned by Scientology?

No joke.

	NorthernLiberties.org - A Community Bulletin Board - Northern Liberties, Philadelphia
Return to Website

Author	Comment
HK_Newbie IP: 192.91.173.36 May 14, 08 - 9:17 AM	earthlink shutting down Well, this sucks for anyone using them. It was an interesting project, and I've used the free wi-fi in a few parks in the city. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080513-philadelphias-municipal-wifi-network-to-go-dark.html
Brian IP: 198.137.214.33 May 14th, 2008 - 9:50 AM	Re: earthlink shutting down I'm not too sad about this project failing. In my opinion, the city has no business getting involved with providing internet service. I mean, did they get involved to provide telephone service? Cable TV? No. Do I feel better that my tax dollars are not going to pay for the ability of some boy in North Philly to surf porn or play online video games? Indeed. To me this just seemed like another John Street boondoggle. Small Government!!!
lutton IP: 71.242.96.203 May 14th, 2008 - 10:14 AM	Re: earthlink shutting down C'mon, Brian. This project was designed right up the small-governement alley: outsourcing to private enterprise. Of course, like so many other projects under the Street Admin, there were hidden costs, questionable appointments, and poor oversight. Properly run, this concept should be a boon for large municipalities: private companies should be able to pay a franchise fee for the right to service us.
Jordan IP: 70.20.226.192 May 14th, 2008 - 11:35 AM	Re: earthlink shutting down Brian, Because only residents of North Philly surf porn or play online video games? I bet half of the people reading the message board right now are at work. Your statement was incredibly ignorant. The internet is a powerful tool for job hunting, keeping in contact with colleagues, and for education. Those of us with access to it have a huge advantage over those who cannot afford it. It was a great idea but poorly executed. I hope the Nutter Administration finds a way to help the poor get connected.
Brian IP: 198.137.214.33 May 14th, 2008 - 12:03 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down As always, Jordan, thanks for setting me straight. I had no idea that there were beneficial things on the internet. How insightful. Now it all makes sense. So back to the point. Aren't telephones useful? And even cable TV? Does that mean the city should be involved in dispersing access to these media? Well, it hasn't. So, why is internet access any different? Unlike you, I guess I just don't feel charitable in this regard. If you think you need to provide funds to the underpriviledged to gain unfettered access to the internet, so be it. As for me, I don't. Plus, they can still go to the free library, right? Let's at least admit that there are two sides to this issue, and try not to be so righteous.
Jordan IP: 70.20.226.192 May 14th, 2008 - 1:03 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down Brian, From talking to you, you would think the problem with this country is that the poor have too much and the wealthy don't have enough...
Kent IP: 166.20.24.144 May 14th, 2008 - 1:32 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down It's not "free" if your taxes are paying for it. But was the service actually free? I could have sworn I heard it was all going to be free, but then I started getting flyers in my door for buying WiFi access from Earthlink for a monthly fee. Didn't seem free at that point. It is a shame that it won't be there for paying customers who don't want to go down the road of DSL or cable modem, but it sounds like it just wasn't profitable for Earthlink. The doh moment of the article: "EarthLink claims it was going transfer the network to the city of Philadelphia for free (as well as donate the WiFi equipment), but blames the conclusion of this months-long drama on the city's inability to get its act together." Email: kdurham@nyx.net
lutton IP: 71.242.96.203 May 14th, 2008 - 2:15 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down >>nd even cable TV? Does that mean the city should be involved in dispersing access to these media? Do you even know what your talking about?!? The city regulates via franchise (and charges money for said franchise) cable TV. But the end customer pays for it! It was the same set up for Wireless Philadelphia. People paid Earthlink (or other provides who piggybacked on the Earthlink system) for internet access. Some households were eligible for discount service, which Earthlink figured they could cover with enough full-cost subscribers. It was entirely designed as zero-cost to the city (although in true John Street fashion, that administration did manage to stick taxpayers with some staff people under the radar for a while). The concept is reasonable, but obviously the business plan was not sound. I'd also blame poor marketing and immature technology as part of the problem. Now that Earthlink cannot or will not run the system, and keeping the system operable would in fact cost taxpayers money, the system is being shuttered. Exactly as it should be. But there is not nor ever was some welfare queen driving around in her caddy downloading her porn with free tax payer funded wifi!
Brian IP: 198.137.214.33 May 14th, 2008 - 2:17 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down Jordan, I'm sure that you'd be glad to know that my position is hardly as you suppose. I do believe that the gap between affluent and poor is far too vast and that the affluent are OBLIGATED to subsidize the poor in many aspects. The point at hand though is whether this venture was illconceived from the start. I contend so. This is not a case where the money from the affluent would be wisely utilized. It's romantic to think that, but sorry to say, it ain't so. And I resent paying for it. As is often the case, my point can be succintly summarized by a vague Simpson's reference: Monorail Side point: I would scarely content that you are talking to me, nor I to you. In any case, I am always happy to meet up with neighbors. This is an interesting topic to me. I don't claim to be any definitive source, but I have opinions, and I am always open to hearing alternative, intelligently-posed (and, I hope, unbiased) points of view.
VC IP: 151.197.238.193 May 14th, 2008 - 2:34 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down Brian, you've made some rash generalizations about the people who would potentially be downloading free porn. I find it to be a bit offensive. I am not one of the "kids from North Philly", yet I was planning on taking full advantage of the free porn. You may find it hard to believe, but white, middle aged men like myself are also capable of being savvy porn consumers. I don't think that access to porn will give anyone an advantage over those who do not have equal access, but there is no doubt that porn is extremely useful.
lutton IP: 71.242.96.203 May 14th, 2008 - 2:49 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down >>Let's at least admit that there are two sides to this issue, Yes, reality and Brian's world. >>It's not "free" if your taxes are paying for it. It wasn't free and our taxes didn't (or weren't supposed to) pay for it. >>Unlike you, I guess I just don't feel charitable in this regard. You sound so desperate to deny charity, that you imagine it where it doesn't exist! Oh and by the way, props to Philly -- the wireless I signed into was, while not free, public wifi. See, even liberal political bloggers at Obama rallies pay for it! The fact is, the city was to have been compensated, both financially and with internet access, in return for allowing Earthlink to operate the system here. In addition, that internet access could have been further leveraged to reduce costs and improve efficiency of various city agencies. The bottom line should have been a net positive for city coffers, had the system been built with the right technology, promoted correctly and operated well. Yet because some "underpriviledged" "boy in North Philly" might gain some (non-taxpayer funded) benefit, you'd turn all that away.
Brian IP: 198.137.214.33 May 14th, 2008 - 7:04 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down I am in the same boat as Kent. I remember this service being touted as free initially. If that has changed or was never the case, then my point of view is altered. I am taking your words as facts on this, lutton, so back off a bit, OK? I still don't think the city should have been involved like it was. Did they get involved when every tele company in the world wanted to build cell towers everywhere? Isn't that nearly the same thing? What am I missing? Why couldn't capitalism cure this obvious need? What was the market inefficiency that caused the government to intervene? Seriously, inform me please. And please try to disabuse yourself from any bias due the case that you might have gotten some use out the service.
nlguy IP: 76.99.25.36 May 14th, 2008 - 7:53 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down The city did get involved with the cell towers. They lease space at the tops of public buildings to the tele companies, best spots went to highest payers.
Kent IP: 72.94.65.58 May 14th, 2008 - 8:19 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down I could have sworn it was planned to be free... quick google turns up a bunch of articles about its intention and demise. from 2005: http://www.gcn.com/print/24_6/35315-1.html The act forbids any “political subdivision” or entity created by one—such as a local government or government-created nonprofit—from providing any telecommunications service to the public for a fee. At the time, Philadelphia’s plan was for free WiFi service, but the city also had said it might charge a small fee as it rolled out the network citywide. Intersting number from ABC news yesterday: The company has 5,942 subscribers in Philadelphia out of a projected minimum of 100,000, according to its lawsuit. EarthLink said it is losing up to $200,000 a month operating the network because subscriber fees covered less than half of costs. Ouch.... only 6k subscribers? It's definitely no wonder they are pulling out. For me, there seem to be two pricing issues: 1. If you have a landline, for $20 you can get DSL and set up your own wireless LAN in your house.... this is probably a more reliable solution for people who don't use their laptops around town. (This is what I do.) 2. The main competition for $20 WiFi is probably just using your neighbors wifi for free. If you live in a well-off densely populated area or big apartment building, there are probably at least a handful of open wireless networks you can just use for free. I love the Internet as much as the next guy, but many cities have been trying to jump on the municipal WiFi bandwagon since Philly, and it hasn't been a rousing success in many places (if it doesn't work out in San Fran, I don't see how it is going to work out here).#333 Email: kdurham@nyx.net
Brian IP: 69.253.133.31 May 14th, 2008 - 9:49 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down Yes the city does lease space for towers, but this is far different from what seems to be more like a partnership with Earthlink. The city was much more entrenched in the WiFi project. And that's probably one of the reasons why it failed.
lutton IP: 76.99.23.221 May 15th, 2008 - 4:02 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down Regarding any free service, the only aspects I see were some free hotspots around high profile public areas: Love Park, Ben Franklin Parkway, etc. And while I haven't reviewed specific documents, the impression I got was that these free hotspots would be made available by the provider as a condidtion of securing a 'franchise' to service the city. This is akin to the public access channels and studios (which Comcast managed to avoid providing for years, perhaps decades, although they were legally required to build/provide such studios). If there were original aspirations to provide permanent free wireless internet access - for anyone or just a 'select' few - that idea did not fly in the real world. And if you decided that the whole project was wrong based on that assumption which was never part of the actual agreement you're guilty of judging the book by its cover. BTW, I'm in the position of having used their network - although I did some research and discovered a good deal through an independant provider (wi-phi.com) which piggybacked on the earthlink network - but not as my main provider. Here in NL, I've utilized Verizon DSL and Comcast cable internet. Overall, at the end of this whole venture, I see these problems: First, and probably worst, a terrible plan to promote the service and attact full-pay customers - the whole project was predicated on enough full-pay customers; second, a technology based project both ahead and behind the technology curve - now we have all the major wireless companies offering the Fed millions of dollars for bandwidth to blanket us in wireless net access; and third, a negative attitude that some "underpriviledged" "boy in North Philly" might be getting something for less than full price.
Albert Golden IP: 199.0.186.33 May 16th, 2008 - 5:14 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down I worked for a company that bid on the WiFi project against Earthlink. When Earthlink got it, we all cheered since their business model was bound to fail. Our model (and others who lost out) was profitable - something Street didn't want for his business partner. No surprise there... he likes to keep it in the family. Email: agolden@earthlink.com
Jordan IP: 70.20.226.192 May 16th, 2008 - 5:23 PM	Re: earthlink shutting down Isn't Earthlink owned by Scientology? No joke. Email: jrushie@gmail.com