Magazine

In acknowledgment of how most people would rather conduct transactions over the Internet than use the phone and risk subjection to the dulcet tones of Muzak, city, state and federal governments have practically become e-governments. As Sascha Meinrath, research director for the Wireless Future program at New America Foundation think tank, explains, “The Internet changes the way we interact with government officials and institutions. It creates a flow of information.”

That is, if you have access to the Internet. Information gives people power, which is why our country’s founders mandated freedom of the press. As print becomes less relevant and prevalent than the Internet as a source of up-to-date and accurate information, techsavvy people hold an advantage over anyone who doesn’t know what a URL is. This information imbalance affects job opportunities, income, family and general quality of life, a phenomenon known as the “digital divide.”

“Access to the Internet is part of a fundamental way of living in a civil society, like access to roads and parks,” Meinrath says. “But a number of people haven’t realized it yet.”

THE STATS

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in May 2008, 73 percent of adults use the Internet. An overwhelming majority — 90 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 29 —use the Internet. Only 35 percent of those over 65 years old have used the Internet. Clearly, elderly people are being left out of the Digital Revolution.

While 75 percent of non-Hispanic whites use the Internet, only 59 percent of non-Hispanic blacks use the Internet. About 43 percent of African-American households surveyed in 2008 have home broadband connection, compared to an overall average of 55 percent of adult Americans who have home broadband connections. Minorities unfamiliar or uncomfortable with technology are falling off the information wagon.

Of households with incomes less than $30,000 a year, only 53 percent use the Internet. When household incomes are over $75,000 a year, the number rises to a whopping 95 percent.

In rural households, 63 percent use the Internet, compared to 77 percent in the suburbs and 74 percent in the cities. More and more rural households are signing up for broadband at home; however, 1 in 10 non-broadband users say that service isn’t available where they live, according to John Horrigan, associate director of research at the Pew Internet & American Life project. Not having broadband, Horrigan says, “constrains flexibility and shuts off options.” For instance, if a voter missed the television broadcast of an important speech in the recent presidential campaign, without the Internet, she might not get to see it at all.

WI-FI BY OTHER MEANS

When Wi-Fi first became the rage, many cities across the country pledged to provide free Wi-Fi but failed to make good on that promise. EarthLink, which was supposed to partner with a number of cities, including Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago and San Francisco, got out of the municipal wireless business (see sidebar). Not all efforts to link cities to the Internet are dead in the water, however; though larger cities have had varied success, smaller municipalities and community networks are making it happen.

In 2004, Chaska, Minn., was one of the first to offer municipal wireless, though it’s not free and doesn’t blanket the town. Hartford, Conn., Santa Monica, Calif., Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Ore., also have robust free or low-cost networks.

Meinrath thinks the reason more cities aren’t doing municipal Wi-Fi is because they “don’t look at the long-term payoffs. They don’t quantify the social or economic benefits.” For instance, if people pay $50 a month to a corporation, the city is essentially losing money. “The city is making money by spending money within the local community,” explained Meinrath. “When you have broadband, it raises property values by 6 to 8 percent,” he added. St. Cloud, Fla., with a population of32,000, provides free, municipal Wi-Fi over 15 square miles that is accessible to 80 percent of its residents. The city invested $2.6 million to set up a network when they realized residents were spending a total of $4 million a year on broadband.

When big cities succeed, it is largely because they have found alternative ways of funding network expansion. In San Francisco, a technology company called Meraki has stepped in with the promise to provide Wi-Fi for the entire city by the end of 2008 with a project called Free the Net. The Bay Area-based company is paying for the project out of its research and development budget to showcase to the world what it can do. Taxpayers haven’t spent a dime. Instead, residents voluntarily host free repeaters on their windows and rooftops. Meraki aims to bring affordable Internet access to a billion people. Since September, 150,000 new users have connected to Free the Net. Meraki has set up over 1,000 networks in 125 countries, from the tip of Alaska to a fishing village in Chile.

“We’re saying it’s a basic right to have Internet access,” says Tomica Divic, company spokesperson. “On a human level, the Internet is important to give people access to employment and create equal opportunities for everyone.” It’s also good for business, she adds. For example, apartment complexes can use Meraki technology, which costs about $1 per month for each tenant, and charge more for rent. The company also brings mesh wireless networks into affordable housing units, an effort much lauded by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

NON-PROFIT ROUTERS

In other cities, it’s the homegrown non-profits that have stepped up to the plate, not the corporations or city governments. Since 2001, the group NYC Wireless has advocated free, public wireless Internet access in the Big Apple. They’ve set up free Wi-Fi networks in public spaces like Bryant Park, Madison Square Park, City Hall Park and the South Street Seaport. They’ve also installed networks in four affordable housing units in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan. Executive director Dana Spiegel recalls setting up free Wi-Fi for a man in a transitional housing unit in the East Village. The resident started his own blog and even became an amateur videographer. “To him,” Spiegel says, “free Wi-Fi was a lifesaver. He was gushing in thanks.”

The problem of affordability becomes increasingly apparent, Spiegel points out, as computer prices drop, sometimes as low as $300 for a desktop, while broadband prices continue to average about $34.50 per month. Spiegel, 31, became interested in free Wi-Fi while studying at M.I.T. He has an undergraduate degree in brain and cognitive science, as well as a master’s degree in social media, which gives a sociology bent to the study of computer science. “Wireless technology brings people closer. I’m more connected to the local community, even when I’m not in my apartment,” says Spiegel, who lives in Brooklyn. His building has a website and sends out email newsletters.

WE’RE SAYING IT’S A BASIC RIGHT TO HAVE INTERNET ACCESS,” SAYS TOMICA DIVIC, MERAKI’S SPOKESPERSON. “ON A HUMAN LEVEL, THE INTERNET IS IMPORTANT TO GIVE PEOPLE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT AND CREATE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVERYONE.”

NYC Wireless “doesn’t believe New York City government needs to offer a municipally provided network,” however. Spiegel explains: “What we need is competitive, available fiber optic connectivity” to prevent monopolies. By providing a free alternative to residents in public places, Spiegel believes they’re expanding the population interested in paying for broadband.

Austin, Texas, has also partnered with a local non-profit, Austin Wireless City, which is cooperatively owned by independent businesses and government stakeholders. All the city’s parks and its 21 libraries are in the network. The bus stops and Park and Ride facilities have free Wi-Fi.

Six years ago, founder Richard MacKinnon convinced the city’s government that Wi-Fi was imperative to the community — no easy task since Texas was one of the first states to pass legislation that prevents municipalities from installing community Wi-Fi. MacKinnon did it with a Trojan Horse of sorts. The state capital’s cafeteria, Capitol Grill, wanted to supply Internet access to its customers. MacKinnon offered to install it and deliberately avoided any fanfare.

“It had to be a secret, or it would get shut down,” he says. The free Wi-Fi network eventually did get shut down, but was resuscitated after much protest. Once the residents had a taste, they clamored for free Wi-Fi everywhere. Pretty soon, Austin Wireless City, which had already staked its presence in coffee shops, bars and restaurants, was partnering with the city to provide Wi-Fi all over the community. According to MacKinnon, they now support about one million Internet connections.

In the poor neighborhoods with few coffee shops and restaurants, Austin Wireless City set up shop in libraries. Computer classes started to grow in popularity, and not just among those pursuing a better-paying job. “Hispanic groups use Skype to make free phone calls to their families in Mexico,” explains MacKinnon. “Suddenly, Windows was important to learn.”

MacKinnon points out that the government has resisted municipal Wi-Fi with the argument that “we shouldn’t use taxpayer dollars to compete with private businesses.” He counters that the government bears responsibility when the private sector doesn’t want to deploy in poor-income neighborhoods or rural areas. The government should also help keep the private sector honest, he maintains, by pursuing municipal networks. After all, the U.S. Postal Service competes with FedEx and UPS, and the police department doesn’t threaten the private security business.

FIRST THE GLOBAL VILLAGE, NOW THE TRIBAL

When it comes to Internet access, rural areas are hit hardest; they face severe pricing discrimination. According to Meinrath, who worked on getting free wireless networks running in central Illinois, Chicago was paying $80 to $90 per megabyte, Urbana was paying $300 per megabyte and Greenup was paying $1,300 per megabyte. “If we had those kind of markups in any other commodities, like fuel, people would flip out. There would be riots if it was like this for gas,” says Meinrath. “Until we address discriminatory, institutionalized practices, we are challenged with providing universal access across the country.”

One expansive Native American community in rural Southern California, however, offers a lesson in success. Tribal Digital Village links 17 reservations, spread over 250 square miles of rugged terrain. Using solar-powered antennas on mountaintops, some put in place by helicopter, the network now links 70 buildings, including schools, libraries, police and fi re departments. “It was cost-effective to do a wireless system” rather than use expensive satellite technology, says Rantanen. Since then, they’ve shared their expertise with the Navajo and Coeur d’Alene tribes, as well as communities in Chile and Nigeria.

“Like other rural communities, we’re left without the opportunities. The companies figured there were not enough people, not enough infrastructure to invest,” explains Matt R. Rantanen, director of Tribal Digital Village. Utility companies also wouldn’t approach them about laying fiber optic cables because, as Rantanen explains, they needed permission from tribal leaders to dig on sovereign land. Some negotiation with tribal leaders was the only requirement, but many companies weren’t willing.

Seven years ago, the Tribal Chairmen’s Association partnered with University of California San Diego, and received a $5 million grant from Hewlett Packard, kick starting the project with equipment, support and services. Tribal Digital Village, a subgroup of Tribal Chairman’s Association, also tapped into the universal service fund (USF), federal money designated to provide telecommunications to rural areas by offsetting the costs of running telephone lines in high-cost areas. Your monthly telephone bill shows a service charge, which is each citizen’s contribution to this fund. Rantanen’s organization applied for this funding to cover monthly wireless costs to their schools and libraries.

Kids can now get tutoring and obtain high school credits online. They get help doing homework projects, “an experience that the average white kid gets in his suburban home. The Indian kids didn’t have that opportunity,” says Rantanen. This past summer, wildfires that hit the San Diego area affected several tribes. The Internet enabled them to apply for federal grants, and aid came within two weeks. “We’re seeing a huge amount of grant approvals at the tribal level we didn’t see before,” says Rantanen.

SURVIVING THE DIGITAL AGE

There’s no end to the benefits of wireless technology, but it still hasn’t spread as a low- or no-cost utility in many cities for several reasons. City governments are afraid to invest tax dollars in such an infrastructure. Powerful lobbyists for telecommunications companies also push legislation to prevent cities from setting up municipal wireless networks. In some cases, community organizations have taken it upon themselves to bring broadband to their hometowns in a guerilla effort.

“Broadband is important. You can’t survive in a digital economy and be useful. We haven’t made it the priority that we need to,” warns Meinrath. “When you have a global economy, people don’t understand what the detriments that people without Internet will be in. Even if the U.S. fails to do so, other countries will not.”

This article appeared in the Winter 2008 issue of Next American City magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW!