Flickr Photo: pfhyperMunicipal wireless became a dirty word a few months back. The stories out of San Francisco and Philadelphia were salacious, making the idea of wireless Internet access seem like a pipe dream.

The truth of the matter is that many towns have made it work, and many large cities are still committed to bringing the Internet to ALL their citizens, affordably. Look at Boston. Why haven't you heard about the Boston municipal wireless initiative before now? Probably because they are taking the slow and steady approach. This week, they had their first victory, getting a one square mile patch of the city covered.

With the ashes of so many municipal wireless contracts swirling around us, what makes places like Minneapolis and Boston (and the still viable Philadelphia plan) work? The answer in the case of Minneapolis and Boston is community ownership.

In San Francisco and Philadelphia, the contracts were structured with the assumption that the revenue would be generated primarily by user subscriptions: the middle class folk and small businesses who buy accounts for $9.95 (or whatever amount) per month. Of course, what we saw in Philly was that the costs of installing the network were grossly UNDERestimated and the immediate revenue return from these subscribers was grossly OVERestimated.

The fact is, installing wireless networks is tough. It's difficult to predict what a wireless signal will do when it wraps around a corner, or has to go through a tree. This is further hindered by the fact that wireless networks have such a tiny sliver of spectrum to work with -- you know, so that big media won't be interrupted by your need to research local government races or chat with your family online. So getting a wireless network to work in a major metropolis is going to be expensive. It requires a LOT of transmitters.

At the same time, the typical consumer doesn't really care about all that extra expense or difficulty. They just want wireless access, for as close to free as possible, and with no down time.

So a model built around the end-consumer in this emerging field isn't going to fly. Enter Minneapolis. Their agreement is built on the anchor-tenant model: the city of Minneapolis guarantees a set amount of revenue to the wireless provider, on top of whatever fees consumers pay. What this means for the provider is that they have a guaranteed source of revenue and a reason to keep working on the contract. Anecdotal evidence (the city has not released any official numbers) suggests that the city is actually saving money on connectivity costs for its field and office staff at this point, as well.

Boston is approaching it differently. They are building the network themselves, through a nonprofit the city created, Open Air Boston. The nonprofit is raising funds from community foundations and supporters to build out the network. They are covering their costs as they go and ensuring performance before they move on to the next piece. They are also involving the neighborhoods in the build-outs. While this model seems sustainable, we'll have to wait to see if it's scalable.

Two vastly different approaches to municipal wireless operating on the same principle: the community has to commit to make it work.

So what does this suggest for the struggling Wireless Philadelphia initiative?

It suggests that they need stronger community partnerships in whatever reiteration of the network they pursue. They could move towards the anchor-tenant model. In fact, the city does not even need to be that anchor tenant. Earlier this year, Vince Stehle suggested that there are many universities in Philly, all of whom need to provide wireless to their students. Perhaps they could be the anchor tenants. Or maybe the community media outlets?

It's tough to say how the issue of ubiquitous access will unfold. But it IS clear that Internet access is fast becoming indispensable, a real lifeline for all citizens. We as nonprofits need to keep investing in the experiment to ensure that all our clients can get access, easily and affordably.