IP Democracy: Earthlink & Philly Offer Another Broadband Access Model

Though Google’s free WiFi proposal in San Francisco is arguably more radical in its implications, Philadelphia selection of Earthlink’s proposal, reported today by the Wall Street Journal, also represents a significant step toward developing new broadband access models. All the more so since it is coming from a large and respected independent ISP that has long wanted an alternative to dependence on telco or cable wholesale deals as its avenue for broadband growth.

In the Philadelphia program, the high-speed service will be available for free in parks and other public places. To get wireless broadband at home, low-income families in the city will be charged $10 a month, while all other households will be charged $20 a month.

Philadelphia earlier had narrowed its choices to EarthLink and Hewlett-Packard Co. EarthLink was chosen because it will share revenue with Wireless Philadelphia, a nonprofit organization working with the city to promote broadband access, said Dianah Neff, a city spokeswoman.

Bambi Francisco quotes Earthlink vp of development and planning Bill Topegin:

“The free model from a historical perspective is not a successful one,” Tolpegin said, pointing to the beginnings of NetZero and United Online. Both companies offered free service, but eventually had to merge to survive. Now, they’re charging, he said. “Is one model set to dominate the nation? I think there are different models.”

Bambi says she agrees with Tolpegin about there being room for multiple models. On the ad-supported front, she cites Feeva, which has developed software to target advertisements based on location and has set up a free WiFi service at a few locations in San Francisco, a project that includes Google as a sponsor.

The project is designed to show the city that free access can attract users, and usage, and ultimately advertising, said [Nitin Shah, Feeva CEO and co-founder]. The location-based advertising has yet to be turned on in Union Square, because the goal is to first see if users want free access, according to Shah. So far Feeva is serving thousands of users per month. Then when Feeva can show the city that users have signed up, the next step is to test out the targeted service.

Bambi also gives an example of how location-based WiFi services might work as a utility, including “a number of kinks to work out.”

Say, I want to find a store that sells men’s shoes around Union Square in San Francisco. If I go to Union Square and turn on my laptop, I can get access to the Internet via Google. By searching for men’s stores in that area, eventually, I can get targeted ads sent to me from stores in that surrounding area. Some ads may say: “We’re closing in 30 minutes, so better walk a couple blocks north to Bob’s shoes and get those brown leather loafers you’re looking for.”

This might have sounded like an annoyance to me, before my recent experience. Early last week, I was looking for stores that sold men’s shoes in that area. I was proactive about my search - asking my male colleagues and searching online. It took some time to get all the information - location and closing time - as part of my search. By the time I got to Union Square, there were many stores that I didn’t even think of.

Hence, targeted advertisements would have actually made my quest much easier. Of course, I’d have to be located in Union Square, in theory. To be sure, there are a number of kinks to work out. For instance, I can’t fit my laptop in my purse, so I wouldn’t have turned on the computer while I was there. Additionally, it’s unclear whether privacy groups would be up in arms about this invasive type of advertising.

Posted by Mitch Shapiro on October 4, 2005 1:18 PM to IP Democracy