More Thoughts of Philly: Three Months After the Philadelphia Story.

Joshua Breitbart is a clever professional writer from New York and he is good at getting his articles picked up and placed. He presents himself as an impartial analyst of Wireless Philadelphia and other municipal wireless projects around the country. But time and time again, what he presents as analysis is simply a point of view—one that is out of synch with the realities of our project and serves to divert our attention from what the Wireless Philadelphia Initiative has achieved, divide us against each other and make it more difficult for us to take the Initiative to the next level.

Stripping it all away, the Wireless Philadelphia Initiative has scored two major accomplishments that are the envy of every other major city in the US. At 80% complete we have by far the largest wireless network in the United States (Wired Magazine, March 2008) and we have built the most far reaching digital inclusion program in urban America in partnership with a growing number of community organizations, funders and supporters (MuniWireless.com).

Josh and some of his colleagues continue to criticize Wireless Philadelphia for not being publicly owned. Okay, whatever. That would be great from an ideological point of view. The fact is that a publicly owned network was not a real option in 2005, nor is it a real option now. (Glenn Fleishman’s detailed dismissal of Josh’s assertions bears revisiting: http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008085.html) If we had gone that route we would have no network in Philadelphia, and certainly not the nation’s largest. We now have the opportunity to build on this valuable asset.

What is needed now is for everyone to take a deep breath. We have a new administration that is familiarizing itself with the Initiative; EarthLink has decided to sell and that is simply going to take some time. Empty calls for Wireless Philadelphia to “hold EarthLink’s feet to the fire” may make some people feel better, but they mean little in the context of the actual contract (published on our website at http://www.wirelessphiladelphia.org/documents/Network_Agreement_for_PDF.pdf), which is by all reasonable accounts favorable to the City and the citizens of Philadelphia.

We have and continue to hold EarthLink to its obligations within the terms of the Network Agreement. I have never promised anything on behalf of EarthLink; rather, I have always been open and honest with everyone given the best information I have. The contract gives EarthLink a fairly broad timeframe to complete the sale. No sale can go forward without prior written consent from WP and the City, and we will exhaustively vet any provider presented to us. From my perspective this sale can’t happen soon enough, so we can focus fully on the important work of bringing necessary technology to low wealth families across Philadelphia.

In the meantime, WP is working closely with the new administration, including the new City Solicitor, and we are seeking to identify a new business and operational model that involves both more local involvement and responsibility combined with support from key national foundations and nonprofits who recognize what all of us in Philadelphia have achieved and are dedicated to helping us build to the next level.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for weighing in. Since you're reading, I thought I'd ask a few quick questions that I've been getting from a number of different folks about the Philadelphia Wireless initiative:

1. Could you unpack what "80% complete" means? Unto itself that term is quite confusing (e.g., a bridge that is 80% complete is 100% unusable) -- the network was "70% complete" in December, so something's changed since then, but it's unclear what that is.

2. Since I'm a subscriber to Wired Magazine, I looked up the article you cite, it actually states, "Philadelphia, the sixth-largest US city, is the biggest urban area to get a network running" not that Philadelphia is the biggest wireless network in the country (which it is not). Since you claim that this misstatement is one of the "two major accomplishments that are the envy of every other major city in the US," I'm curious how you would justify that every other major city in the US envies Philadelphia?

3. The other main accomplishment you list is that Wireless Philadelphia has "built the most far reaching digital inclusion program in urban America" yet the Minneapolis digital inclusion initiative is both better funded and thus larger in scope. Given this (and the myriad other digital inclusion programs and initiatives across the country), how do you justify claiming that Philadelphia's program is "the most far reaching"?

4. You state, "Josh and some of his colleagues continue to criticize Wireless Philadelphia for not being publicly owned." Yet, in the post you are criticizing, Josh says, "the best hope is that EarthLink will donate the system to a local nonprofit." Since Josh has been explicit in not wanting the city to own the Philadelphia wireless project, why do you continue to state that he wants it to be owned by the city?

Personally, I would recommend taking a look at the Boston Wireless Task Force final report in terms of identifying a new business and operational model. Though it too has its shortcomings, I think it might provide some good ideas for how Philadelphia can improve its wireless offerings.

Looking forward to your replies,

--Sascha