1. Business Models for Wireless City Networks in the EU and the US Leo Van Audenhove IBBT-SMIT Pieter Ballon IBBT-SMIT Martijn Poel TNO The Centre for Studies on Media, Information and Telecommunications (SMIT) is part of the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the Interdisciplinary Institute for BroadBand Technology (IBBT)

6. Introduction to the 15 cases City Short description Phase Key driver Bologna (IT) Iperbole Wireless Network: Experimental WiFi network providing wireless internet access to selected groups Pilot Public: City of Bologna Boston (US) Gradual expansion of Boston Main Streets WiFi project providing wireless internet access to entire city Request for proposal Public: Boston Main Street Bristol (UK) Bristol Hot Zone: WiFi hotspot zone providing wireless internet access and walled garden services Operational Public: City of Bristol Cardiff (UK) BT Openzone: WiFi hotspots and zones providing wireless internet access Operational Private: British Telecom Leiden (NL) Wireless Leiden: community network of wireless nodes sharing internet connections Operational Local Community Paris a (FR) Establishment of 400 WiFi access points Information phase Public: City of Paris Paris b (FR) Site provisioning to private operators with the objective of full WiFi coverage of Paris Information phase Public: City of Paris Philadelphia (US) Wireless Philadelphia: large-scale WiFi network providing wireless internet access Roll-out Public: City of Philadelphia

7. Introduction to the 15 cases Portland (US) WiFi/WiMAX network providing wireless internet access to citizens, companies and city workers Tendering phase Public: City of Portland Sacramento (US) Large-scale WiFi network for wireless internet access and additional services Tendering phase Public: City of Sacramento San Francisco (US) WiFi network covering the entire city for wireless internet access Request for proposal Public: City of San Francisco Saint Cloud (US) Cyber Spot: Full coverage of city with WiFi/WiMAX network providing wireless internet access Operational Public: City of Saint Cloud Stockholm (SW) Stockholm Mobile Connect: WiMAX network providing wireless internet access Roll-out Public: City of Stockholm Turku (FI) OpenSpark: WiFi community network providing wireless internet access Operational Private / Local Community: Sparknet Westminster (UK) WiFi network for closed circuit television and other services Operational Public: City of Westminster City Short description Phase Key driver

9. Discourse on goals

12. Technology, topology and coverage

16. Business model: roles / activities

17. Main factors to differentiate between business models Network ownership / operation Private concession: one private player Private concession: one private player Public / Non-profit: one or several public players Public / Non-profit: one public player, e.g. the city itself Wholesale: several private players build on a wholesale access offer Open site model: several players No specific ISP, e.g. “using” existing ISPs Community model: communities of individuals or organisations Service provisioning

22. P ublic inputs and returns Public inputs Public returns Site provisioning / rental Influence on prices Number of ISPs Subsidies Coverage, e.g. specific areas Licenses, e.g. exclusive, special Financial return Public backbone (backhaul) Type of applications Procurement, city as anchor tenant Other Other

23. Public inputs and returns City Input Description Influence Description 1. Private-Private Model Bristol Low - Site provision - Co-financing of pilot Low / Medium - City has the right to offer municipal services within walled garden environment - Limited period of free Internet, financed by advert. Cardiff Low - Site rental Low / Medium - Limited number of free accounts for city employees - City collects rental fee Paris (a) Very High - Full network financing - Site provision - Outsourcing of network operation and service prov. Very high - Outsourcing contract - Free access to hotspots for all citizens Westminster Very High - Full network financing - Site provision - Outsourcing of network operation and site provision Very high - Outsourcing contract - Only dedicated services for municipality are offered

24. Public inputs and returns City Input Description Influence Description 2. Private-Wholesale Model (two examples) Philadelphia Low - Site rental - Exclusive license for 10 years - City as ‘anchor tenant’ Medium / High - Wholesale offering - License and rental fees - Limited coverage requirements - Price cap on wholesale tariff - Low subscription rate for socially disadvantaged - “Free hotspots” at limited number of strategic locations - Free accounts for city empl. Sacramento Low / Medium - Site provision - Access to City backbone network for backhaul - License for 5 years - City as ‘anchor tenant’ Medium / High - Initially, free subscriptions for all were demanded by city; this is being re-examined - Plans involve limited basic free service and subsidies for socially disadvantaged - Free access for schools - Preferential service for municipal services

25. Public inputs and returns City Input Description Influence Description 3. Public-Public model St Cloud Full - Fully public financing , ownership and operation of the network Full - Full control over coverage, services - Completely free access 4. Public-Wholesale model Boston Medium - Site provision - Set-up of Non-profit organization for building network and making wholesale offering to service providers - Limited co-financing by city Medium? - Not known as project is still in information phase Stockholm High - Site provision - Building network and making wholesale offering to service providers through non-profit organization Medium? - Not known as project is still in information phase

26. Public inputs and returns City Input Description Influence Description 5. Open site model Bologna Low - Site provision to multiple actors Low? - In the pilot phase, a limited free access service was demanded by the city. It is recognized that this requirement is probably ‘untenable’ after the pilot, within the open site model Paris (b) Low - Site provision to multiple actors Low - Stimulus for competition 6. Community model Leiden Low - Site provision - Subsidy of one specific application Low - Some influence on topology by integration of city’s own nodes Turku Low - Site provision - Provision of additional access points Low - Some influence on topology by integration of city’s own nodes and additional access points