Transcript Some Underpinning Principles and Lessons Learned In the First Year

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 citywide 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., servicedriven xPod)
Some Buzzwords:
“Web 1.0” vs. “Web 2.0”
Web 1.0
Web 2.0
Platform
Netscape, Explorer, ..
Google services …
Web pages
Personal Websites
Blogging
Portals
Content Manag. Systems
Wikis
V&VoIP
Netmeeting
Skype, …
Enciclopedia
Britannica Online
Wikipedia
Knowledge
Directory taxonomy
Tagging (folksonomy)
Referencing
Stickiness
Syndication (RSS)
Content
Akamai (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)