I must take issue with Sewell Chan, city desk reporter for The New York Times, as he reports on Wi-Fi Salon's demise in Deal Collapses for Free Wi-Fi in Parks.
He begins with this "The long-troubled arrangement to install wireless Internet networks in Central Park and other New York City parks has quietly collapsed after the contractor, Wi-Fi Salon, ran out of money because it could not find corporate sponsors."
Now one might assume from this that the network was never built, that it was an intent to build that was never acted on. The fact is that the parkwifi network was built out in the second half of 2006 and for 2007 and 2008 served 1000+ New Yorkers a day in 17 locations in 10 parks in 4 boroughs.
Now Sewell went to Harvard and majored in English. I think he knows that the phrase 'arrangement to install' means. It means something quite different from 'built out and maintained,' which we did for years. In fact I pointed out this out to him. He said he would 'consider changing it.' Nice slant there, Must be nice to have so much ink to spill on someone.
Let's go back to his first words -- "long-troubled arrangement" -- now. The Parks Department gave Wi-Fi Salon an initial three year concession, renewable after that year by year. After the first three year installment, during which Wi-Fi Salon invested 1.3 million dollars to build out the 17 locations, the concession was renewed for 2008. Wi-Fi Salon was well on its way for renewal for 2009, contingent on payment of $16K concession fees and another $7500 as a security deposit when September hit. We just could not find a sponsor quickly enough to cover those fees and the considerable month to month operational fees in time (10K/month for 17 locations in bandwidth, overhead). The shut down was quiet because right up until the last day (December 5th) we were working with a potential sponsor to offer something more than a written commitment and write a check, which in this climate was just too much to ask.
He begins with this "The long-troubled arrangement to install wireless Internet networks in Central Park and other New York City parks has quietly collapsed after the contractor, Wi-Fi Salon, ran out of money because it could not find corporate sponsors."
Now one might assume from this that the network was never built, that it was an intent to build that was never acted on. The fact is that the parkwifi network was built out in the second half of 2006 and for 2007 and 2008 served 1000+ New Yorkers a day in 17 locations in 10 parks in 4 boroughs.
Now Sewell went to Harvard and majored in English. I think he knows that the phrase 'arrangement to install' means. It means something quite different from 'built out and maintained,' which we did for years. In fact I pointed out this out to him. He said he would 'consider changing it.' Nice slant there, Must be nice to have so much ink to spill on someone.
Let's go back to his first words -- "long-troubled arrangement" -- now. The Parks Department gave Wi-Fi Salon an initial three year concession, renewable after that year by year. After the first three year installment, during which Wi-Fi Salon invested 1.3 million dollars to build out the 17 locations, the concession was renewed for 2008. Wi-Fi Salon was well on its way for renewal for 2009, contingent on payment of $16K concession fees and another $7500 as a security deposit when September hit. We just could not find a sponsor quickly enough to cover those fees and the considerable month to month operational fees in time (10K/month for 17 locations in bandwidth, overhead). The shut down was quiet because right up until the last day (December 5th) we were working with a potential sponsor to offer something more than a written commitment and write a check, which in this climate was just too much to ask.
Instead of the arrangement being "long-troubled," I would call it long
standing. We first presented to Parks August 2003. In December 2008,
in the middle of a downturn of epic proportions, we just couldn't pay
in time, which was contrary to Parks regulations. We tried our best to
meet the terms of the agreement and came up short. We understand and
accept that. What is unacceptable, however, is Sewell's
mischaracterizations, his failure to note what in fact was
accomplished by us.
We will still be lighting up public spaces through Wired Towns, a new venture begun in early 2008 to serve business improvement districts in New York and other cities. Our first location is in Union Square, where we have a network that, using equipment from Altai technologies, covers the entire park and supports 250+ users. Whatever NYC Wireless has to say about things, they cannot touch this kind of performance. Only Bryant Park's Wi-Fi network can match this.
Sewell only notes this "Last year, the Union Square Partnership agreed to work with Wired Towns to restart a network in Union Square Park and its surrounding streets." I told him we've been up since September there, and that it represented a new step forward for Wi-Fi in New York. I guess he is 'considering' reporting on that as well.
My goal is as it has always been -- to provide New Yorkers and now other cities with community Wi-Fi. I am eager to work with the City on bringing Wi-Fi to public spaces through Wired Towns. For now, and presumably for 2009, the ten flagship parks we served will be dark. There are still a dozen parks run by NYC Wireless, and of course Bryant Park.
I hope the next time (the soon to be unemployed?? -- see below ) Sewell writes on me and public Wi-Fi, I get a better shake. I hope for a lot of things though. If the phone rings and its Sewell, he's gunning for you. Ask any city administrator. He had already posted an even more biased version of his article today before he even spoke to me. I don't know if the NYTimes thinks going New York Post-al is going to increase its readership. I just lost a lot of respect for the paper today.
Don't mean to tangle with The Old Grey Lady, but she ain't what she used to be.
Addendum: Here's some delicious irony -- As Michael Hirschorn writes in The Atlantic in an article entitled End Times, The New York Times itself is facing a credit crisis that plausibly could put it out of business by May. It's tough out there.
We will still be lighting up public spaces through Wired Towns, a new venture begun in early 2008 to serve business improvement districts in New York and other cities. Our first location is in Union Square, where we have a network that, using equipment from Altai technologies, covers the entire park and supports 250+ users. Whatever NYC Wireless has to say about things, they cannot touch this kind of performance. Only Bryant Park's Wi-Fi network can match this.
Sewell only notes this "Last year, the Union Square Partnership agreed to work with Wired Towns to restart a network in Union Square Park and its surrounding streets." I told him we've been up since September there, and that it represented a new step forward for Wi-Fi in New York. I guess he is 'considering' reporting on that as well.
My goal is as it has always been -- to provide New Yorkers and now other cities with community Wi-Fi. I am eager to work with the City on bringing Wi-Fi to public spaces through Wired Towns. For now, and presumably for 2009, the ten flagship parks we served will be dark. There are still a dozen parks run by NYC Wireless, and of course Bryant Park.
I hope the next time (the soon to be unemployed?? -- see below ) Sewell writes on me and public Wi-Fi, I get a better shake. I hope for a lot of things though. If the phone rings and its Sewell, he's gunning for you. Ask any city administrator. He had already posted an even more biased version of his article today before he even spoke to me. I don't know if the NYTimes thinks going New York Post-al is going to increase its readership. I just lost a lot of respect for the paper today.
Don't mean to tangle with The Old Grey Lady, but she ain't what she used to be.
Addendum: Here's some delicious irony -- As Michael Hirschorn writes in The Atlantic in an article entitled End Times, The New York Times itself is facing a credit crisis that plausibly could put it out of business by May. It's tough out there.
Marshall,
I understand your frustration with the NYTimes, and with the situation in general. I know you've worked very hard building your networks.
But please, don't have sour grapes. The parks that NYCwireless has built and support are not "pocket". Madison Square park is one of the top parks in NYC. And we created the Bryant Park hotspot and ran it for a year, along with the first Washington Square Park hotspot.
Dear Dana,
You are right. That was an unfair characterization. I removed that word and linked to your site.
I will admit to being slightly jealous though. The parks we were offered were generally too large or remote to be simply lit up from a neighboring building. Central Park, Prospect, Van Cortlandt, Corona-Flushing Meadows, Pelham Bay, The Battery and Riverside were all very very costly to deploy in and to maintain.
You noted on your blog: "Marshall has posted a response on his blog, where he talks about the difficulties in getting internet service installed from Verizon and Covad. He’s certainly right on this front (though we didn’t spent nearly the $250k he did to get our parks online)."
Correction -- it took $500K, and half was wasted waiting for Verizon and Covad technicians who couldn't find the park buildings because these buildings didn't have real world addresses. A technician would get an address blocks away, then leave when he couldn't find anyone. No phone call. Gone.
Then there was -- and is -- the condition of the copper under the parks. Lucky to find a working pair, and then it was hardly reliable. The copper is basically rotting in the ground in these large parks, never to be replaced, many thousands of feet from a central office.
The seven months between June and December 2006 were an absolute nightmare. 12-15 scheduled calls per location to get a working line in, missing deadline after deadline, hundreds of thousands wasted, losing the window of good weather for many locations. Very painful.
Elsewhere, you state that I 'overpromised and underdelivered.' In that scenario, how could I not have? I knew that with Verizon it was going to be rough, but I had no idea at first that they couldn't even find the buildings, or that the telecom situation in the parks was that awful.
We can do things quickly, cheaply and effectively too, and have been through Wired Towns. You just have to know to go fixed wireless with someone like Rainbow Broadband so as to avoid Verizon/Covad, and get a nice friendly nearby building to work from.
As for your suggestion that I could cut costs with Soekris and Linux, that is what we use. My costs were what they were given the logistical challenges we faced. Today, for around $25K, Wired Towns can build a heck of a network, one capable of supporting 200+ people simultaneously, and well cover a space like Union Square, or the center of any of the other 58 business improvement districts in NYC. The monthly fixed wireless costs add up, but that's where a recurring revenue model takes hold.
I don't know, as you stated, that being a non-profit confers any advantage to NYCWireless in achieving this goal. A for-profit with an advertising, sponsorship and services model driving it, can result in a sustainable, scalable model for community Wi-Fi. That is what we sought to develop with Wi-Fi Salon, and that is what Wired Towns is attempting to do as well. With the flood of iPhones and netbooks coming on line, and companies like Altai, our vendor, making superior networking gear, we believe more than ever in this goal. Non-profits are a crucial complement to this -- they represent the very communities we are trying to help. We are focused on BIDs, non-profits that support local businesses.
I suspect there was a bit of champagne poured at my demise in certain circles. Call it the narcissism of small differences. We both want the same thing -- public Wi-Fi in this city. We still have our work cut out for us.
Peace. Good luck.
Marshall