From WiFi4EU to public connectivity infrastructure that remains open, controllable and sustainable

Municipal and community wireless networks are no longer an experimental technology used by a small number of networking enthusiasts. They have become essential digital infrastructure for public squares, libraries, schools, cultural venues, health centres, tourist areas and remote communities. The European WiFi4EU initiative demonstrated in practice that free public wireless access can be deployed at scale. More than 7,200 municipalities have installed over 93,000 WiFi4EU access points across Europe.

The increasingly important question, however, is no longer how many access points have been installed. It is who will be able to manage, maintain, upgrade and expand them over the long term.

A public wireless network should not be treated as a piece of equipment purchased once through European funding. It is infrastructure with a lifecycle measured in years. It requires security updates, monitoring, user management, configuration changes, equipment replacement and continuous technical support. This is precisely where open source software acquires strategic importance.

Open source is already used where connectivity must remain economically sustainable

The study Building Sustainable Connectivity: Free and Open Source Software Adoption for Community-based Internet Providers, published in June 2026 by Connect Humanity with support from the Digital Infrastructure Insights Fund, offers a particularly useful example.

The study examines the ecosystem of small Internet service providers and community networks in Brazil, where 11,853 Internet providers were operating in 2024. Roughly three quarters served fewer than 5,000 subscribers. These organisations therefore face a challenge similar to that of many municipalities: they must operate real network infrastructure without the financial and human resources available to a large telecommunications operator.

The central finding is significant. Open source software is not merely a theoretical alternative for the future. It is already widely used. It reduces software licensing costs, enables the use of more affordable hardware and provides access to an international ecosystem of knowledge, documentation and technical expertise.

The study also stresses that the main obstacles are no longer primarily related to the maturity of the technology itself, but to the ecosystem surrounding it. Better documentation, training, technical support, shared reference architectures and organisations capable of assuming long-term responsibility for maintaining solutions are still needed.

This may be the most important lesson for Europe as well. Making source code available is not enough. What is needed is an ecosystem capable of turning that code into a dependable public service.

The technology stack already exists

A municipality does not need to develop its own software from scratch to gain control over its wireless network. Mature platforms already exist and can be combined into a complete open infrastructure.

OpenWrt can serve as the operating system for compatible access points and routers. OpenWISP adds centralised management and automation, enabling administrators to manage large numbers of devices, apply common configurations, monitor their operation and organise public WiFi services.

FreeRADIUS can provide authentication, authorisation and accounting. Tools such as Zabbix, Prometheus and Grafana can be used for network monitoring, while NetBox or phpIPAM can document network infrastructure and address allocation. For routing and network security, mature open solutions include VyOS, FRRouting and OPNsense.

Not every municipality needs to deploy all of these tools. The important point is that a mature, modular ecosystem now exists, allowing public authorities to select the components that match the scale and requirements of their network.

This does not mean that every existing WiFi4EU access point can simply be converted to OpenWrt. Existing hardware must first be inventoried, checked for compatibility and assessed against security and support requirements. In many cases, migration can take place gradually, beginning with central monitoring or authentication systems and replacing equipment during its normal renewal cycle.

This avoids another costly “big-bang migration” and gradually creates infrastructure that municipalities can genuinely control.

From vendor subscriptions to investment in local expertise

The main advantage of open source software is not that everything becomes free of charge. Networks still require people, technical support, hosting, cybersecurity and maintenance, regardless of the software model used.

The difference lies in where public resources are spent.

In a closed ecosystem, a municipality may become dependent on a particular manufacturer, proprietary management platform or cloud service for the day-to-day operation of its network. Changing supplier may then require replacing equipment, migrating data or redesigning substantial parts of the system.

With open platforms, a greater share of the same budget can instead be directed towards installation, configuration, cybersecurity, training and technical support. These services can be provided by multiple companies, university teams and local technical organisations.

Public spending therefore stops producing merely a temporary licence to use a product and begins to create expertise that remains available within the local economy and community.

This is particularly important for smaller municipalities. It would make little sense for every small municipality to create its own specialised network operations team. It is entirely feasible, however, for several municipalities to share an OpenWISP installation and common technical support services at regional or inter-municipal level. Such a model creates economies of scale without producing dependence on a single manufacturer.

WiFi4EU should move from financing installation to financing sustainability

WiFi4EU achieved something important: it transformed free public Internet access into a recognisable European public service. The common “WiFi4EU” SSID, free access without advertising or commercial exploitation of users’ data, and the deployment of tens of thousands of access points created a genuine European public connectivity infrastructure.

The initial funding model, however, focused primarily on equipment deployment. Municipalities were required to maintain free connectivity for at least three years. The next generation of European public wireless connectivity policy should pay much greater attention to what happens after installation.

The key criterion should not be merely whether an access point works on the day a project is accepted. It should be whether the municipality will still be able to manage it five or ten years later, even after changing suppliers.

Future European funding schemes should therefore require documented open interfaces, the ability to export all configurations and data, the right to self-host management systems, support for open standards, a clear supplier exit plan and access to security updates throughout the expected lifecycle of the equipment.

At the same time, funding programmes could give priority to solutions whose management software is open source and can be maintained by more than one service provider.

This is not about excluding commercial companies. Quite the opposite. It is about creating a more competitive services market in which a company succeeds because it provides better technical support, not because it has made its own replacement technically impossible.

Open source does not mean weaker security

A public wireless network is infrastructure and must be operated according to serious cybersecurity standards. Regular security updates, strict separation of public and administrative networks, secure device management, event logging, configuration backups and a clearly defined incident-response plan are essential.

Open source software does not guarantee these characteristics on its own. It does, however, provide an important institutional advantage: security and maintenance do not depend exclusively on the decisions of a single manufacturer.

The source code can be inspected. Vulnerabilities can be identified and fixed by communities or third-party providers. Public authorities can require specific policies on updates, software dependency inventories and technical support.

The correct choice is therefore not “open source instead of security”. It is open source combined with professional management, service-level agreements and clearly assigned responsibilities.

An “open source first” policy for public connectivity

Such an approach would not be an exception within European digital policy. In 2026, the European Commission further strengthened the relationship between open source software and technological sovereignty, interoperability, reuse and the reduction of strategic dependencies. European policy on open digital ecosystems increasingly views public administrations not only as software buyers, but also as organisations capable of using, reusing and contributing to open solutions.

The same principle should apply to public connectivity.

Any future European initiative that continues or extends the WiFi4EU model could adopt an “open source first” principle. This would not require the mandatory use of a particular product. Instead, procurement and funding criteria should make independence from individual suppliers a measurable requirement.

A small share of European funding could also support what is still missing most: common documentation, translations into national languages, tested reference architectures, training material, communities of practice and technical support structures for municipalities.

Infrastructure purchased with public money should remain infrastructure that public institutions can continue to use and control. A municipality should be able to change its support provider without replacing its entire network. It should understand how its system works, be able to export its data and configurations, and decide where its management platform is hosted.

That is the practical meaning of digital sovereignty at local level.

WiFi4EU demonstrated that Europe can deploy public connectivity at scale. The next step is to ensure that this connectivity remains economically sustainable, technically controllable and independent of the commercial decisions of a single supplier. Mature open source platforms already exist. What is now needed is for public policy and public procurement to start making systematic use of them.

Sources:

Connect Humanity, Building Sustainable Connectivity: Free and Open Source Software Adoption for Community-based Internet Providers: The study by Nathalia Foditsch and Guilherme Flynn Paciornik, published in June 2026 with support from the Digital Infrastructure Insights Fund, empirically documents the use of FOSS by small Internet service providers and community networks in Brazil and proposes a 16-category stack based on mature open source technologies:
https://infrastructureinsights.fund/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/202606_-DIIF_FINAL-deliverable_CH.pdf

European Health and Digital Executive Agency, WiFi4EU: HaDEA reports more than 7,200 European municipal networks and more than 93,000 WiFi4EU access points, demonstrating the scale of the public connectivity infrastructure already created across Europe:
https://hadea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/connecting-europe-facility/wifi4eu/download-wifi4eu-app_en

European Commission, WiFi4EU: Citizens: The European Commission’s official page describes the €15,000 voucher model, the minimum three-year operational requirement and the principles of free access without advertising or commercial exploitation of users’ data:
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/wifi4eu-citizens

OpenWISP, Open Source Network Management System: OpenWISP is a mature open source platform designed for the centralised management of public WiFi, university networks, mesh networks and other low-cost network infrastructures, integrating OpenWrt, monitoring, RADIUS and automation:
https://openwisp.io/

European Commission, EU Open Source Strategy and Technological Sovereignty Package 2026: The emerging European policy framework links open source software with technological sovereignty, interoperability, reuse and public procurement, providing the institutional basis for a corresponding approach to public connectivity infrastructure:
https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/interoperable-europe/news/tech-sovereignty-package-eu-open-source-strategy.