Earthlink considers "strategically" withdrawing MuniFi investments

In a statement so laden with PR speak that it'd bring even the most heartless PR flack to the brink of wretching, Earthlink's CEO has announced that the company is to withdraw investment in Municipal WiFi schemes unless the "model" of these networks becomes more closely aligned with Earthlink's undefined "strategy." Translation? Earthlink ain't making a big enough return on its investments in MuniFi projects, and the shareholders are getting antsy. This could leave various cities high and dry without WiFi, although Earthlink apparently won't be able to simply walk away from the contracts that they've already signed. This could be a major setback for blanket WiFi coverage in cities across the US, although we doubt it'll be long before someone else picks up the baton (either that, or the cities will probably drop it.)

[Via Slashdot]

[sunnysideos @ Nov 18th 2007 9:07AM]

earthlink has the worst customer service. i signed up for this wifi, and then canceled right away. do not do business with this company!!!!

[energyvortex @ Nov 18th 2007 9:33AM]

If US cities are relying on Earthlink to get its business done in a successful manner in order to have blanket wifi coverage, they should just consider themselves boned right now.
Earthlink sucks in all facets of business and technology. One of the worst provider experiences I've ever had the misforture to be invovled with.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Nov 18th 2007 10:05AM]

too true...

[Tommy @ Nov 18th 2007 9:51AM]

We have free earthlink wifi here in New Orleans, and I have never been able to use it once. I have heard some stories of people using it, but I would rather use edge on my iphone.
Maybe if Earthlink actually spent the money and installed a system that was useful then people might purchase their package?

[Phil @ Nov 18th 2007 9:54AM]

Earthlink is really a non-player in the evolving Internet. They are just living off of the scraps of people who can't get high-speed Internet anyway, so it's no surprise that they can't get their act together in finding a business model for the future.

Even in the dial-up space there were always better alternatives to them. The only reason they got briefly big was because they were very aggressive at marketing themselves as the anti-AOL.

Plus the pre-bubbleburst Internet analysts loved to over-hype founder Sky Dayton as a wunderkind, and he turned out to be a one-trick pony. His Boingo and eCompanies still haven't found a survivable business model, unless you call draining investors of their money a business model.

[Wussbag Penderson @ Nov 18th 2007 10:05AM]

Uhhh... broadband EvDO already blankets the same cities, and more. No infratsctucture investment needed. If a city wants to subsidize internet access, why doesn't it simply strike mass discount agreements for EvDO-capable chips and subscriptions, capping bandwidth per user to prevent abuse. Sure - not cheap either - but easier and cheaper than the silly WiFi fantasy.

[Wodheila @ Nov 18th 2007 10:22AM]

Municipalities have no business setting these things up. They are tax money sewers. Cities should stick with garbage pickup and let it be.

[themartorana @ Nov 19th 2007 12:19AM]

Municipalities have every right to set up a program that benefits everyone in the city, not to mention the businesses that pay millions in taxes to the cities.

Living in Philadelphia, one of Earthlink's original sites, city WiFi has been met with some skepticism from some, but the parks are full of people on city WiFi, many that work relatively closely, some that work for themselves and want internet anywhere.

Not to mention, of course, that with Philadelphia anyway, it's hardly free. $10/m promo for a little while, but the true price is $20/m. That's hardly free, but the city investing in the infrastructure made it possible for people to pay for this particular service - just as they pay for sewer, trash pick up, water, etc - all of which are city services.

[friendlyner @ Nov 19th 2007 9:25AM]

I live in Philadelphia too, and I once had an Earthlink Wifi account. I canceled it after trying for over a month to get it to work properly.

I had a wifi modem with a gigantic antenna, and I was getting a good signal inside my house. Even so, it never worked right. I'd bet anything it was a shared bandwidth issue - it usually worked during the daylight hours, but as soon as the sun went down (and presumably, people are home from work and actually using the service) my speeds went down to sub-dialup rates. If I could connect at all it was a miracle.

I would call customer service and they would tell me things like "clear your temporary internet files" or "download our Feather connection software." I thought it was pathetic that I had to tell tech support that the feather software is embedded in the firmware of the modem they sent me. Earthlink tech support is nothing but a distraction technique and to get you off the phone.

Whoever sold this as a workable technology was either a brilliant salesman or a complete con-artist. Probably both.

[Wodheila @ Nov 19th 2007 9:48AM]

You mention "Earthlink" so I'm sensing that maybe the city is contracting this out. There are cities that, with their own crews and folks are engineering and building these networks. My point is toward the fact that once in the government domain the need to maintain or advance the system as technology changes is now in the hands of people that have little skill other than to throw money at a problem.

I guess if it's contracted out and all the city does is supply money that's one thing . But you're back to accountability. With the configuration I'm familiar with, where the city itself is the operator, there is none.

Just remember there is no such thing as "free stuff". There is only stuff paid for by someone else.

[Fruition @ Nov 18th 2007 10:40AM]

I thought Google was doing something like this? It seems like they'd be a good candidate, considering they seem to be made of money.

[ethana2 @ Nov 19th 2007 3:50AM]

Can you /imagine/ an ISP with the motto 'Don't be evil'?!
*drools*

Google, hear our cries.

[darkstar @ Nov 18th 2007 10:44AM]

would be nice if we all could share!!!
i used to live in apt and i would gave my next door neighbor a cable off the wired router. now, i just let the neighbors have it all with the wireless. and when im on the road, i used whatever wifi around. with

i dont have docs to protect on my pcs, so i dont care about securities.

[ethana2 @ Nov 19th 2007 3:54AM]

Can I take a guess at your operating system?

...Oh, nevermind, a 92% random chance just isn't impressive. Okay then, let's take bets on how long it takes before his machine gets completely owned by some pissed neighbor kid.

[strider_mt2k @ Nov 18th 2007 10:56AM]

Has Earthlink ever NOT sucked for one reason or another?

[Eric @ Nov 18th 2007 11:24AM]

Earthlink's primary source of revenue is dial-up Internet service.

Quest's primary source of revenue is POTS.

Comcast's primary source of revenue is cable television.

Verizon's primary source of revenue is POTS, with voice POTS a very close second.

The current state of Internet service in the US is such as it is because it is INCREMENTAL REVENUE. It is a secondary service (like call forwarding and pay per view movies). It just happens to cost a lot more than other "premium" services. Even if you pay the extra fee for not bundling, you are still getting a break on infrastructure due to your neighbors having video and phone service. In some areas, running wire can cost as much as $500/ft, and negotiating rooftop antenna rental fees can run into thousands of dollars. That's a lot if you want to charge a competitive price and be a pure-play ISP.

That's why everyone's worried about FiOS and Xohm. It allows the "triple play" AND crazy fast data connections.

[Eric @ Nov 18th 2007 11:26AM]

"Verizon's primary source of revenue is POTS, with voice POTS a very close second."

That should read "wireless POTS."

[ethana2 @ Nov 19th 2007 3:56AM]

Indeed. Google, CoPowI, the 700MHz band and WiMax should make this all very interesting.

[Averox @ Nov 18th 2007 11:39AM]

Philly wifi was supposed to be completed the summer of 2006 when I first started reading about it. Now we're at the tail end of 2007 and the service still doesn't cover all of Philly yet.

Another thing is, who the hell is going to pay $10-$20 a month for internet access with an extremely limited area of coverage? I pay $20 a month for data on my phone and despite how slow it is, I can get internet access pretty much anywhere I go.

[[e-mail] @ Nov 18th 2007 12:02PM]

I'm surprised that WiFi has even gotten this much traction. Isn't WiMax a more feasible and less costly alternative (30 mile radius).... Am I clueless ???

[Phil @ Nov 18th 2007 12:30PM]

Yes you are.

[ethana2 @ Nov 19th 2007 3:57AM]

WiFi came first. It's not that complicated, really.

[Xavier @ Nov 18th 2007 1:01PM]

Of course it's failing. 802.11 b/g WiFi is fundamentally the wrong technology to use for blanket coverage of an entire metro area. Unlicensed spectrum, too few non-overlapping channels, no access control. Maybe in localized areas like campuses or convention centers, but not a citywide public utility. WiMAX *might* work, but it's years away.

[[e-mail] @ Nov 18th 2007 1:15PM]

I'm nit so sure it's years away ... Intel is pushing it big time ....we've all heard about the Sprint WiMax failure, but that wasn't due to technology, it was simply a shareholder revolt (which got the CEO fired btw) that nixed their plans .... the standard is approved and fully mature for deployment ...heck Intel is even integrating it into their mobile chip sets (along of course with WiFi a,b,g,n) starting next year

[Ben @ Nov 18th 2007 1:27PM]

"wretching"!? 'retching', man, 'retching'

[Justin @ Nov 18th 2007 7:48PM]

At least I wasn't the only one who noticed. I know this is the Internet and not school, but that doesn't mean that grammar and spelling are somehow optional.

[Garst @ Nov 18th 2007 1:43PM]

So this is why there has been any news about city-wide WiFi in about a year? I didn't expect it to go too far anyways, because any time you would want to improve speed or quality, you would have to replace the entire network.

[Reader @ Nov 18th 2007 6:33PM]

omfg dude posting a link on engadget isn't going to get anyone to go to your site, unless they're a hacker.

[Sam @ Nov 18th 2007 11:31PM]

time to short my earthlink stock.....hehehehe

[SOCOMRAIDER @ Nov 18th 2007 11:49PM]

Luckily Minneapolis picked USI Wireless over Earthlink. We already have a decent system running and should be complete by the end of the year.

[Sizer @ Nov 19th 2007 12:38AM]

Wow, this is amazing. So Tropos pretty much singlehandedly killed Muniwifi by suckering Earthlink into using their crappy tech.