[UPDATE02] Once or twice a week I get the question, "I'm thinking about using Meraki's equipment, what do you think?" And I always start my answer much the same way. [As a disclaimer, I've known the Meraki folks since their time back at MIT -- my development teams used to collaborate actively with them.]

Meraki is a great system for quick do-it-yourself networking. The technology is elegant and the graphical user interface (mostly) intuitive. If you want a plug-and-play technology immediately deployed, it's a good solution. But that is far from the whole story.

As many of my readers know, I've been advocating for open tech for years and years -- so how does Meraki stack up? The core technologies in Meraki are open source -- but they've been smothered in a proprietary wrapper that makes Meraki little different from most "black box" solutions. Users can't easily view the code, change features (or add features, for that matter), fix bugs, or otherwise adapt the technology for their own uses. As a number of open source projects have discovered, even gaining access to information that was covered by existing open source licenses has become increasingly difficult as Meraki has become increasingly proprietary.

Most people think Meraki's back-end is free. They are wrong. In fact, Meraki plans tomay eventually charge for the use of their services. As a recent GovTech article reported, Meraki's founder stated that their solution "includes three years of its data center services in the price of the hardware." For those who forget, Meraki's hardware used to cost $49 for an indoor node, then the cost went up to $149 -- if you wanted more equipment, you had to pay a rate three times as much, and since Meraki's equipment is sole-sourced, you had to pay whatever they charged.

I fully expect that we're going to see the same problem with Meraki's back-end services. Most users (and certainly just about everyone in the general public) thinks that once you buy a wireless access point that it will continue to work indefinitely (or at least until the hardware fails). With Meraki, however, you're getting a package of hardware and software -- and you can't run a Meraki network without Meraki's proprietary back-end. So how much will the service cost at the end of your 3-year "free" period? I have no idea (though if you know, please let me know). [EDIT: As Meraki CEO, Sanjit Biswas, clarified on this blog (see comments), "the cost the hosted backend service is included for the lifetime of the device with the current line of products at $149/$199. We may decide to unbundle the pricing with future products, but it will be clear to the customer and not a hidden fee." So current hardware should remain free to use. And what happens if you've been a Meraki network over that 3-year periodand are now about to get a huge monthly charge? Probably you'll either have to pay whatever they cost or parts of your network will cease to work. I'm not sure that I would agree with Sanjit that this is not a hidden fee -- most Meraki customers are not aware of the possibility that future compatible hardware might carry additional fees.]

Hundreds of projects, organizations, and municipalities are rolling out Meraki-based networks, yet few seem to understand that they're buying a bundled service not just a piece of hardware. Over time, these initiatives will end up paying an unknown amount of money to Meraki just to keep their system running. It is, in fact, the ultimate bait-and-switch paradigm -- you think you have a one-time hardware cost, instead you get vendor lock-in, recurring charges, and path dependencies.

These and other reasons are why it remains so important to support and utilize truly open technologies. The simulacrums are getting better and better -- but inevitably you're getting a worse deal than you think.

What happens when GoogleDocs goes down? A good question.

All privacy concerns aside -- one of the problems with the whole "Software as a Service" angle is the non-proximity of the problem. If, like me you've been wondering what happens after 30 seconds lasts far longer than 30 seconds, it's an important reminder of the dangers of over-reliance on any one medium. Single points of failure suck -- it's a good thing I have local back-ups of all important GoogleDocs.

The New York Times is now reporting on the hacking of the websites of ICANN and IANA. For many of the folks who've been attempting to conduct research on the Internet and make improvements to its structure, this comes as no surprise. And yet, the scientific community faces a continuing data acquisition crisis -- they're prevented from collecting the information they need to know how the Internet works and how we might improve it. At the heart of the matter is an utter disregard by regulators and policy makers to mandate that companies make information available that had been in the public domain previously, but which they now claim to be proprietary. Until that's done, the security and structure of the Internet will continue to face failures, with the degree of chaos only certain to grow in coming years.

The recent FCC spectrum auctions netted $19.6 billion. In essence a group of companies paid for exclusive licensure of several bands of the public airwaves. Which begs the question, if they have exclusive licensure (guaranteed by law and by the enforcement powers of the FCC), what happens with all those wireless microphones currently operating (both legally, but mostly illegally) in those bands?

The only solution is going to be that they will have to vacate those bands -- thus far, there's been nothing but silence on the issue. Personally, I plan to grab some popcorn and watch how the telcos and FCC deal with the problem. Meanwhile, devices are, even today, being sold that use this band -- basically, it's pirate radio equipment being manufactured and sold by major corporations. This is going to get interesting.

I would say that a little bird told me; but, in fact, this has been developing for quite some time. New ownership of the Philadelphia wireless network will be announced today. From the community side of things, we're cautiously optimistic that the solution that's been reach will directly address local concerns and ensure the continuing viability of the project.

[UPDATE01] Looks like the rest of the media is finally catching on to the Philly resuscitation. Meanwhile, here's my recommendation for finding out more:

The Future of Philadelphia's Wireless Internet Initiative:
A Public Forum

When: Wednesday, June 18, 6:30 p.m.
Where: Tuttleman Learning Center, Room 105,
Corner of 13th St. and Montgomery Ave. Temple University

Panelists Include:

• Mark Rupp, Principle, Boathouse Communications
• Beth McConnell, Executive Director, Media and Democracy Coalition
• Karl Garcia, Technical Staff, Google's Wireless network, Mountainview, Calif.
• Greg Goldman, CEO of Wireless Philadelphia
• Phuong Ninh, Philadelphia Student Union's Youth Leadership Team
• Bill Green, City Councilman-At Large
• Invited, representative from the Nutter administration

[UPDATE02] From the Media Mobilizing Project in Philly:

Media Mobilizing Project Statement on Change of Ownership of Philly WiFi System

MMP believes that change in ownership is an important step in realizing a vision of a new Philadelphia where everyone has access to the Internet. We are excited to work with the new ownership group. Currently many residents wait two to three hours at local libraries to get on the Internet for 30 minutes. But they wait because they severely need the service. They need the Internet to apply for jobs, apply to college, get vital information about health and their communities. They need the Internet to have the full set of rights which come along with the information based society in which we live.

Consequently, MMP believes that new ownership is a vital step but not a silver bullet in solving the problem that at least 25% of the population lives in poverty, 30% do not own a computer and less then 50% of residents have access to the Web. Therefore, we call on the Mayor and city hall to keep digital inclusion at the top of their agenda. At the same time, we believe it is vital that community groups and the many neighborhoods and people who comprise the fabric of the city, must work and envision how to make the Philly WiFi network not only a technological reality but a social, political and economic resource which compels a more just city. For this reason MMP and Temple University are co-hosting a forum on the future of Philly WiFi Wednesday night at 6:30 in room 105 of Tuttleman Learning Center. The forum will include members of the new owenrship group, Councilman Bill Green and others.

Media Mobilizing Project is a local organization devoted to the use of the Internet and other media as an organizing tool in low-income communities around the city. Media Mobilizing Project works with groups to utilize the media and communications in organizing campaigns while training community members in basic video, audio, web and computer skills. MMP has worked with Wireless Philadelphia getting folks within our network online, while also helping people acquire the tools and skills to access the Web.
In recent months we have been working to inspire community engagement to help keep the Philly WiFi network alive.

Media Mobilizing Project
4134 Lancaster Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215.990.3702
mediamobilizing@gmail.com
www.mediamobilizing.org

Back in December 2006, I organized the COMMONS Strategy Workshop at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis at the San Diego Supercomputer Center. Now, a year-and-a-half later, Google is getting into the game and is hosting a two-day, off-the-record strategy session to put the ideas behind the COMMONS Project into practice.

It's fantastic being here -- 25-30 incredibly brilliant folks from across North America & Europe working to solve the problem that there's far too little data available to network research. This data acquisition crisis is remarkably dangerous -- we very much do not know what's happening across the Internet, how to solve growing problems, or even whether the problems being claimed by ISPs are, in fact, real.

I'm hopeful that by cloistering ourselves off for a few days we'll generate ideas that can be put into practice, both in the short term and over time.

I've been bouncing between workshops, conferences, and summits for the past several weeks and haven't had a free moment to update folks on things. Thankfully, I'm out in CA, which means that my internal clock gets me up between 4:30 and 5:15am each day -- which is way before my local colleagues seem to be stirring and has enabled me to start catching up on the backlog. The 2008 International Summit was a resounding success -- here's a quick wrap-up:

Wow -- what a fantastic Summit!!! Over 150 people came through over the course of the 3-day gathering. Thanks to everyone who made this year's Summit so phenomenal!

Folks have been doing some great documentation of last week's International Summit for Community Wireless Networks -- for those who weren't there (and those who were), I thought I'd point out a few favorites of that people have sent along to me:

Steven Mansour has pulled together an *awesome* slideshow (with music!) that, I think, captures a lot of the energy, excitement, and conspiring (and debauchery) that went down at this year's Summit. This photo-video is really spectacular -- it's worth watching just for the cool effect of the medium -- check it out at:
http://stevenmansour.com/en/videos/2008/june/03/is4cwn_2k8_slideshow

Matt Westervelt took (last I looked) some 897 pictures at the Summit. Many of them are up at: http://flickr.com/photos/mattw/sets/72157605383291643 -- lots of great shots & candids.

Angela Siefer has a great synopsis of Harold Feld's rousing plenary talk titled, "Policy Hackers for Good," available on her blog: http://angelasiefer.com/wifisummit

For the Arabic readers amongst us, Abdelnasser Abdelaal has written up a synopsis for Al Hayat, one of major Middle Eastern papers. You can take a look at http://www.alhayat.com/science_tech/06-2008/Item-20080612-7cefe2ae-c0a8-10ed-0007-ae6ddb9e21f3/story.html. Google translate does an o.k. (though occasionally comical) job.

And the American Association for the Advancement of Science has a great synopsis of some of the keynote speakers up at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0605wireless.shtml, including Amir Dossal (head of the billion-dollar UN Office of Partnerships), FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, Mark Ansboury from One Community, and Rey Ramsey (head of One Economy).

If you've created documentation that you'd like to share, please pass it along. As always, please tag your media "IS4CWN".

New broadband statistics from the OECD (through the last quarter of 2007) point to the complete and continuing failure of the United States to reclaim its prior successes, much less, even keep up with a growing list of other countries. Even the Wall Street Journal is jumping into the fray:

"Once the undisputed leader in the technological revolution, the U.S. now lags a growing number of countries in the speed, cost and availability of high-speed Internet. While cable and telecom companies are spending billions to upgrade their service, they're focusing their efforts mostly on larger U.S. cities for now."

The Wall Street Journal article contains some real gems -- pointing to historical precedents that mirror today's broadband situation and debates:

Chattanooga's Mr. DePriest compares his agency's plan for high-speed Internet to the rollout of electricity, which came to many parts of Tennessee only in the 1930s as a result of the creation by the federal government of the Tennessee Valley Authority. That was three decades after many businesses and homes in major urban areas like New York were first electrified. The country's electricity at the time was largely provided by private companies, which denounced any government efforts to get into the business as "socialist" -- echoing the debate over municipal fiber networks today.

Meanwhile, if a picture's worth a thousand words, here's a few bloggings worth of data:

Lots more OECD facts and figures concerning broadband statistics are available here. For the truly ambitious, take a look at the OECD report on broadband growth and national policies to read about the documented importance of governmental intervention to supporting the spread of broadband connectivity.

Could a political campaign be a catalyst for free wireless across the country? My colleague, Roy Russell, thinks so. He's just launched a campaign to create free open wireless hotspots with the network name, "Obama 2008." It's a great idea -- offer a useful service and local resource, advertise for your candidate of choice, and demonstrate the community-oriented ethos that permeates the campaign.

The affinity group is located at:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4jbm

As Ray writes:

I've turned the security off on my wi-fi network, and renamed the SSID to "Obama 2008". I think of my wi-fi access point as a tiny beacon of hope, beaming my support for Barack Obama out to anyone who is listening, at least with a wi-fi device within 100 yards of my home. And they're free to get some free Internet access. I enjoy sharing with my neighbors, and I encourage everyone to do the same!

Hopefully the other campaigns will follow suite. In the meantime, it would be fantastic to see some official recognition from the candidates for this innovative idea.

Last year, New America Foundation released an in-depth report and analysis of the Wireless Philadelphia Project, "The Philadelphia Story: Learning from a Municipal Wireless Pioneer." We concluded that the private franchise model was suboptimal and that Philadelphia's solution was problematic in a number of ways. At the time, we received good press coverage and a helluvalot of blowback from certain constituencies (who continued to assert that everything was on track).

Now that we've made it to May, 2008, Wireless Philadelphia is on its last legs. While many of us are still working to salvage something from this mess, reading through the New America Foundation report, it's amazingly how eerily prescient it is. Ironically, the solution we proposed was exactly what has been on the table for the past couple months -- but, as with far too many innovative ideas, this one got mired in the muck of Philly politics and, perhaps, personal egos.

Sadly, the mainstream press continue to demonstrate a remarkable ignorance by tagging this failure as a failure of "municipal wireless" -- the reality is, the Philadelphia model is a corporate franchise granted to Earthlink -- much of the problem stems from the fact that the municipality has no control or ownership over the network and Earthlink has demonstrated no accountability to the local community. Conde Nast's Portfolio gets it completely wrong -- heading their story, "Another Municipal Wi-Fi Plan Dies" -- which is a particular shame since I've spoken with the article's author, Sam Gustin, previously and he knows better.

Computer World labels the Earthlink failure as, "another blow to the municipal Wi-Fi market", when a better understanding of the situation would dictate that it's a failure of the corporate franchise business model. SiliconValley.com rightfully points out that where Earthlink's wireless networks have been taken over by municipalities, they've continued to operate, while those that haven't (e.g., Philly and New Orleans) they're being shut down. Isn't the story, then, that where corporate franchises are converted into municipal networks, the networks continue to thrive?

The story's also being covered by PC World, Digital Trends, and a host of other news organizations.

My recommendation? Read The Philadelphia Story: Learning from a Municipal Wireless Pioneer, check out my recent article for GovTech's Digital Communities, Municipal Wireless Success Demands Public Involvement, and remain critical of the notion that the death of municipal wireless is nigh.