Summary: Need help with PR? If you are looking for a great PR firm, you've found one. Walker Sands is a leading Chicago PR firm with a strong track record that makes it one of top national PR agencies..

Wireless Silicon Valley isn't the first proposal for a regional WiFi network, and that's a good thing.
(article continues below useful links)

The 42 local cities involved in the proposal, as well as the team they selected last week to build the ambitious system, have clearly learned from the mistakes of others.

This still isn't a slam-dunk. There's a long list of reasons why the project may never get off the ground, or pay for itself if it does get built.

But I can't find much to criticize in how Wireless Silicon Valley, or WSV, has unfolded up to now. If any project in the over-hyped field of municipal wireless is going to succeed, this is it.

WSV originated in 2004 with Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, a non-profit business-government coalition in San Jose. The idea grew into a formal task force, which put out a request for bids in April.

Seven groups responded in June.

On Tuesday, the task force picked the winner: Silicon Valley Metro Connect, a team created by IBM, Cisco Systems, a small wireless operator named Azulstar and a non-profit named SeaKay.

Metro Connect is willing to provide WiFi service across a region of 1,500 square miles with a population of 2.4 million, including almost all the developed areas of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, along with adjoining communities in Alameda and Santa Cruz counties.

Using Cisco hardware and financed by IBM, the network could start operating in its first city early in 2007, although it would probably take at least a year to cover the entire area.

Anyone with a WiFi-equipped notebook computer or other WiFi device could use the network for free, as long as they're within range of a ``node'' -- a WiFi transmitter/receiver attached to a light pole.

This type of municipal wireless network is a fad right now. WiFi equipment vendors and online activists are pushing cities to build these networks, even though it's not clear whether there's much demand.

MetroFi, a Mountain View start-up, is already offering free muni WiFi in Cupertino, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and downtown San Jose. Google turned on a free WiFi network covering Mountain View in August. EarthLink has announced plans for a network in Milpitas, and is also building a WiFi network with Google in San Francisco.

But I believe WSV and Metro Connect have a better shot at succeeding than these smaller projects, for at least three reasons.

First, WSV benefits from economy of scale. Metro Connect says it will offer free service at a respectable 1 megabit per second, almost as fast as home DSL. That free service will probably be supported by ads. Covering a large region makes it easier for Metro Connect to attract enough eyeballs to lure advertisers.

Second, IBM and Cisco have deep pockets. Diana Hage, director of wireless services for IBM, says the Metro Connect project will cost at least $75 million. IBM can easily afford to make that investment up front, and wait patiently for a few years to get a return. So consumers, businesses and cities can be confident using WSV, without worrying the network might shut down tomorrow for lack of funds.

Third, Metro Connect is pursuing every possible way of making money. The team's plan, beyond free service supported by ads, includes allowing Internet service providers, or ISPs, to resell service that would be faster and ad-free. Metro Connect also hopes to get ``anchor tenant'' contracts with cities, who could use the network for everything from Internet phone calls and wireless meter-reading to placing wireless surveillance cameras in locations prone to vandalism.

At the same time, WSV faces at least three big hurdles.

First, selling the concept to cities. The WSV task force and Metro Connect are starting negotiations this week on a ``model contract'' that individual cities would sign.

``We have made an assumption that we will have anchor tenancy from key municipalities,'' Hage told me last week.

But perennially cash-strapped cities may be reluctant to spend taxpayer dollars, rather than just approving a privately financed network that doesn't require public spending. And if no cities are willing to be anchor tenants, there may be no network.

Second, the growth of competition. The nation's cell phone companies -- especially Cingular, Verizon Wireless and Sprint -- are aggressively selling their own wireless data networks. Today, those networks aren't as fast as WiFi and are more expensive, although they do offer coverage inside buildings where WiFi often doesn't reach. A new generation of cell networks, no more than a year or two away, could close the gap. There are also well-funded companies planning nationwide high-speed wireless networks using new technologies such as WiMax.

Third, inertia. Almost all homes and businesses in Silicon Valley already have high-speed Internet access, and not everyone needs to be online while out moving around in public. New applications for muni WiFi networks, such as phone calls and video surveillance, may take several years to gain popularity. All of which could keep WSV from attracting users at the start.

Still, I'm rooting for Wireless Silicon Valley and Metro Connect. Their network would help keep the region's economy on the cutting edge of technology, and we can't stay ahead of the rest of the world without taking risks.

Copyright © 2006. Mercury News.