Why Is the Wireless City Concept So Inspiring 引人遐思的無線城市 H. T. Kung ( 孔祥重 ) Harvard University 2006 Digital Cities Convention Taipei Taiwan, ROC 29 June 2006

Outline Introducing wireless cities Some positive and negative arguments about wireless cities Challenges Four recommendations Conclusion

Defining Wireless Cities … These are cities that provide (1) government-controlled, (2) citywide, (3) wireless, (4) broadband, (5) infrastructure-level, (6) data networks Currently these networks are all based on, WiFi and/or WiMAX technologies

Examples of Wireless Cities There are many ongoing municipal efforts in wireless cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Mountain View, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco, Sacramento, Taipei and dozens of small cities such as St Cloud These projects are widely covered by the media, and debates on their merit or demerit have received substantial attention from the public (e.g., why does the government do it? what are expected benefits to citizens?)

Taipei Wireless Under the M-Taipei initiative, Taipei now has deployed arguably the largest city- wide WiFi network with over 4,000 deployed Access Points (APs) At this time, it seems that Taipei is still the only major Asian city in this wireless city area

Comparing Two No.1 Recognitions: Taipei 101 and Taipei Wireless Taipei 101, the world tallest building, is beautiful –It wins award. E.g., the Emporis Awards recognized Taipei 101 as the 2004 Best new Skyscraper of the Year for Design and Functionality –It is a “hard” landmark showcasing Taiwan’s economic power

Comparing Two No.1 Recognitions: Taipei 101 and Taipei Wireless (Cont.) In contrast, the Taipei Wireless Project is not necessarily tall nor beautiful. Nevertheless, –The Intelligent Community Forum named Taipei as the 2006 Intelligent Community of the Year –Taipei Wireless is a “soft landmark” showcasing Taiwan’s grassroot power in technology

Positive Reasons for the Public's Attention on Wireless Cities Improve government's services and efficiency (e.g., enhancing e-government objectives in all departments and public safety agencies) Offer affordable Internet access, especially in poor neighborhoods. (Some people would argue the “fundamental right” of a citizen to Internet access) Provide an environment for nurturing innovative IT-enabled services and applications

Negative Reasons for the Public's Attention on Wireless Cities Citywide wireless infrastructure is not government's business and thus is not an area to spend tax payers' money Citizens don't want the big brother to watch their network activities The government is incapable of building and operating citywide wireless infrastructure Business models for these infrastructures are lacking

Rebuttal (1/2) It is generally difficult for private sectors to make money from pure development of infrastructure –Highways do not generally make money, but transportation services and shopping malls that use highways do It is proper for the city government to provide facilities (e.g., light poles) and access rights to locations (e.g., subway stations) to facilitate the deployment of APs

Rebuttal (2/2) Privacy protection is important for citizens, but the wireless infrastructure does not necessarily worsen it It does not seem that there are fundamental reasons why city governments, with some learning, cannot run a citywide wireless infrastructure well The government can support the infrastructure by using the money saved from the improved efficiency due to the wireless infrastructure

Main Challenges How to achieve high penetration? –Especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods How to provide sufficient reliability? How to make the infrastructure easy to use, while providing protection in security and privacy How to come up business models?

Recommendation 1 on Scaling Up the Infrastructure Leverage other non-profit enterprise wireless networks and even individually-owned APs –E.g., we can use peer-to-peer AP-sharing to incorporate these other networks and APs –This would provide a rapid and inexpensive means of scaling up the networking infrastructure and increasing its fault-tolerance Provide free access for an initial period of time, e.g., one year

Recommendation 2 on Creating Value Encourage innovative services –Open the wireless infrastructure to a variety of service providers, beyond government and traditional services such as ISP and VoIP (voice will be free soon) –Call for proposals in innovative services (e.g., convergent services, new content distribution, and Web 2.0 services that automatically push relevant community content to end users) –Set up regulations to ensure a healthy environment for service-level competition –Nurture business models for private sectors to make money on services and related devices (e.g., service- driven xPod)

Some Buzzwords: “Web 1.0” vs. “Web 2.0” Web 1.0Web 2.0 PlatformNetscape, Explorer,..Google services … Web pagesPersonal WebsitesBlogging PortalsContent Manag. SystemsWikis V&VoIPNetmeetingSkype, … EnciclopediaBritannica OnlineWikipedia KnowledgeDirectory taxonomyTagging (folksonomy) ReferencingStickinessSyndication (RSS) ContentAkamai (Content deliv.)BitTorrent (P2) …………..………. Source: What is Web 2.0 by Tim O’Reilly, 9/05

Recommendation 3 on Raising Government’s Expertise Build up government’s capabilities in managing wireless infrastructure in both technology and regulations aspects –If the government can build up its capabilities in environmental protection, it should be able to succeed in this wireless area as well

Recommendation 4 on Digital Divide Give priority to developing neighbors which can benefit most from the new wireless infrastructure Set up education and promotion programs to encourage the use of the infrastructure

Conclusion (1/2) City government ought to be bold in providing citywide wireless infrastructure. There are three reasons: (1) promoting economic development (e.g., innovative services), (2) improving government's services, and (3) helping close digital divide Government expects to face great challenges in developing the wireless infrastructure, including usability of the system and its business model

Conclusion (2/2) To overcome these challenges, we recommend: (1) leverage other networks; (2) encourage innovative services; (3) raise government’s expertise in this area; and (4) give priority in closing digital divide Wireless cities are interesting because their solutions depend on a city’s social capital in addressing complicated technology and societal issues, and successful solutions have far-reaching impacts to the city’s networked economy and society (it is a “soft landmark” or “branding” of a city)