In previous editorials we have described what high speed wireless internet access means, and provided our opinions on the considerations we believe are the most important in providing wireless access for RV park guests. We continue to believe that wireless access, or "Wi-Fi", will see substantial growth over the next few years. As high speed internet access, and wireless networking, become more commonplace with RV travelers, RV parks that offer a quality service at a competitive price will undoubtedly have a marketing advantage. RVers with online needs represent a rapidly growing segment of the RVer population; and parks that do not keep pace with new technologies that provide a quality internet experience will do so at their peril. This is especially true of parks that cater to a significant portion of RV guests that have become dependent up on the Internet for their communications and information needs.
We have previously noted that during the transition from the much slower dial-up modem connections to high speed connections (which will usually be provided by a wireless service), it's important that parks remain "modem friendly" to serve the needs of RVers who have not yet obtained either the equipment or know-how to take advantage of wireless networking. These persons will still have the same need for basic email that they have today -- and for the next few years a dial-up connection will be all they need. For some it will also be the only means of access they will know how to use. So we reiterate one of our basic premises that even where a park chooses to add a wireless internet capability, it will continue to be important that they remain "modem friendly" for those who have not yet acquired the equipment or expertise to use a wireless service.
Once a park determines that providing an in-park wireless internet service would have a positive impact on revenues, a new challenge awaits -- which of many competing services should be used? It is to this issue we address the balance of this article.
A crucial threshold question arises in any decision to offer in-park wireless. It is whether a park perceives that by offering a wireless service it can generate a new source of revenue by collecting a portion of the fees collected by the service providep; or whether the revenue enhancement will come from increased patronage at the park by RVers who will be attracted there in part because they have an attractive wireless system. (And by "attractive", we mean one that is reasonable in price, reliabile and easy to use, uses the latest technologies, and provides good support to its customers.)
In previous articles we have encouraged park owners to favor arrangements with providers that are calculated to provide good service at competitive rates. Arrangements that provide for revenue sharing have serveral pitfalls. It is doubtful that the sharing of a relatively small percentage of the revenue will be significant. But more importantly revenue sharing arrangements have several negative consequences. First, it makes the park a "partner" in providing the service. RVers will expect the park's personnel to help them configure their laptops, change their settings, or solve any matter of problems they might encounter while using the service. There would also be an expectation that if the service slows down (or quits), or is otherwise unsatisfactory for any reason, the park should provide a refund of the money they've already spent by giving their credit card information (online) to the service provider (a payment in which the park is sharing). Parks really don't want to assume these burdens. Potentially it could involve a lot of wasted staff time, some negative public relations experiences with guests, and even considerations of liability if the park involves itself with "trying to help". Where the service provider is truly independent, and does not "partner" with the park, it clearly assumes all responsibility for support, billing, or any problems that an RV guest may have in trying to use the service.
A second reason for rejecting a revenue sharing arrangement is that it inevitably will raise the cost to the RV user, meaning the service can quickly become not competitive with the cost of a nearby park that has no revenue sharing arrangment.
In evaluating the specific terms of an arrangment with a provider of wireless internet services, we think there are several business considerations that a park owner would want to consider in entering into any contract. We speak here only of the business considerations, for the legal context of these matters would require the counsel of an attorney familiar with such matters. Our comments are therefore limited only to the some of the business terms and conditions we believe parks might find of most interest.
1. Length of commitment: Many offerings will likely be based on the premise that the park need pay nothing for either the equipment or the monthy cost of the DSL (or satellite) service. They would only be asked to furnish a suitable location to house a computer, and one or more strategically placed locations where the rather modest sized antenna(s) would beam the signal out into the park. Where the service provider assumes these initial costs, it is not surprising that they are likely to want a longer term commitment from the park to continue using its service. This may be in the range of 2-3 years. And under these circumstances, provided all other terms of the arrangement are satisfactory, a longer term commitment here is probably not unreasonable.
2. Provider's responsibility for billing and support: We suspect that most providers will offer to do both the billing and to provide support to RV guests that choose to subscribe to the service. In every case we've seen to date, a subscriber who is within range of the signal (presumaby anywhere in the RV park) is automatically "online" when his computer is properly configured. However, he is online only so far as the "front gate". The browser screen will describe the wireless service and the fees for use by the hour, day, week or month (sometimes an hourly rate is not available -- the "daily" rate is usually a 24 hour period.) If the RV guest opts to use the service, he selects a rate plan, provides the required credit card information, is online immediately. If there are questions or problems, the service providers toll free number should offer 24/7 support. But we think that in addition to having a contract that puts the burden of billing and support on the service provider, there should also be something on the screen that an RV guest sees before deciding to sign up that makes it clear that the service provider is solely responsible for all billing and support issues, and that the RV park has assumed no responsibility for dealing with either of these matters. This should be no additional burden to the service provider, since they would have contractually already undertaken that responsibility. But from a guest relations standpoint, it could be very helpful for the park if this disclosure is made directly to the subscriber before the fee is paid. The agreement each subscriber makes with the service provider could easily spell out the fact that the service provider is solely responsible for issues of billing and support; and that the facility through which the service is offered (the RV park) has assumed no responsibility for these matters. A notice to that effect should probably be given to the RV guest by the park as part of the sign-in process.
3. Use of Current Technologies: We think a service provider should be willing to give assurances that its service will be based on the latest technology that represents contemporary industry practice. Without getting technical, suffice it to say that wireless technology is "evolving", with newer and still faster wireless technologies on the near horizon. We suspect most providers would be motivated to stay up with the newest and latest technologies once they have become generally accepted in the subscriber community. But for the park to be comfortable on this point, it would not seem unreasonable to request that the service provider make some sort of warranty or representation that its service offering will stay current with accepted community usage.
4. Reliability of service is also of concern to RV guests. There are a variety of factors here that growing experience with wireless networking sugggests are important for a quality service. Most park will want wireless "coverage" for their entire park. Not all RV parks are constructed on square parcels; and most will have some types of interior obstructions, such as an office, clubhouse, or perhaps a stand of trees. Thus each park will need to be evaluated for an "antenna architecture" that will provide strong coverage to as many areas of the park as possible. For many parks a single, multi-directional antenna will not be sufficient. Another feature essential to a quality service is the "speed" of uploading and downloading. This requires sufficient broadband capability to handle as many online users as are likely to be using the system at any point in time. Too many wireless systems may have a tendency to "slow down" (or even become unavailabile altogether) during hours of peak use, which often is late afternoon and early evening. The wireless providers are aware of these issues (antenna architecture, broadband capacity, etc.) and with any quality installation surely intend to provide good signal coverage and adequate "bandwidth" (capacity for multiple users) to ensure good service for a park's guests. We think it would not be unreasonable for them to commit to this standard of performance in the underlying contractual arrangements, whether by a warrranty, representation, or other means an attorney might suggest. That way the park can be confident that it's long term commitment to continue using the service is balanced with a continuing commitment on the part of the service provider to provide the level of service it promises. If during the term of the contract that promise is broken, we think the park should have the right to change service providers.
We offer these observations merely as business considerations that park owners may wish to consider when selecting a service provider, and entering into a long term agreement with one of them. If the provider is unwilling to provide reasonable assurances concerning its responsibilities, and it's commitment to providing a continuing high quality, reasonably priced service for the term of the contract, perhaps that should give pause to reconsider whether this is the "right" provider.
The business issues we've suggested above, as well as all other terms and conditions of any contract, would require the guidance of an attorney conversant with the specific needs of the specific park contemplating adding wireless service. Our purpose here is simply to highlight some of the matters that we think our park owner readers may want to consider as they evaluate the wireless options that are likely to be offered to them in the future.