AT&T Tech Support 360
January 6, 2006 2:19 PM PST
Wi-Fi run by cities: Yea or nay?
Last modified: January 9, 2006 8:52 AM PST
- Related Stories
-
Year in review: Broadband ups the ante
December 23, 2005 -
Cisco enters citywide wireless market
November 15, 2005 -
Google in San Francisco: 'Wireless overlord'?
October 1, 2005 -
Should cities be ISPs?
June 23, 2005 -
The citywide Wi-Fi reality check
May 27, 2005 -
Cities brace for broadband war
May 2, 2005 -
Philadelphia reveals Wi-Fi plan
April 7, 2005
WASHINGTON--As more and more cities weigh getting into the broadband business, there's no shortage of opinions on the topic.
At a Friday debate here, a media-access advocate and a free-market
economist squared off about
Not only should city governments have the unrestricted ability to create their own wireless broadband networks, but they should also consider baking broadband plans into disaster recovery scenarios, argued Harold Feld, senior vice president of the
"At this point I think most of us recognize that the Internet is not a luxury," Feld said. "It has become something essential for the conduct of business and even the conduct of everyday life."
At least some locales seem to agree with that logic. "Citing broadband access as a
But Tom Lenard, a senior fellow at the
"None have been able to cover their costs without being subsidized" by taxpayer money or rate hikes in other public utility bills, such as electricity and water, he said.
Broadband providers like Verizon and BellSouth view the cities'
involvement as a threat to their market share and have been lobbying
fiercely against the idea. Laws
Congress has also taken notice. A bill
Lenard added that large scale wireless broadband networks remain experimental enough to warrant caution. "When the private sector makes bets on one technology or another, it's disciplined by the shareholders," a process that he said tends to occur more efficiently than waiting to vote someone out of office.
But Feld argued that that's missing the point of municipalities' involvement in the first place. Cities are right to step in where "there's a valuable social good or economic benefit that would be distributed if somebody did this, and there's not a rate of return sufficient to attract the private sector"--for instance, in low-income or rural areas.
Local governments should view the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as a lesson, Feld said.
Broadband companies were able to
See more CNET content tagged:
broadband network,
involvement,
Philadelphia,
broadband,
city
Soon, i hope!
1. That would be like charging for libraries or roadways.
2. If restricted, the gap between the haves and have-nots gets bigger. There's a social price to pay in limiting educational resources to the public.
3. Most libraries offer limited speed links(11kbps) to PC users, which don't realistically compete with broadband. Yes, possibly with dial-up, which is a dinosaur anyway.
4. The advantages to local business from open access WiFi, just in terms of another avenue of advertisement, far outway any cash loss to low bandwidth providers.
5. Cities should simply take the necessary spectrum via imminent domain laws to increase tax base....
So, to put it simply, big government is the worst thing to happen, the next worst thing is big monopoly without competition.
private WiFi networks, but they should,
themselves, have the right to provide them.
Experience shows that if the cities cannot
provide the service, private services will arise
only where it is most profitable. I'll grant
you that New York City, to reply to a prior
poster, may be such a place, but such places
aren't that common. Less than half the country
even now has decent internet service of ANY
nature. Either a recalcitrant phone company or
a uninterested cable company, or some
combination of both ensure that broadband isn't
widely available. I live close to San
Francisco, I broadband connections not only only
became available in the last couple of years
(depending on exactly which block you live on),
but it's already devolving into a monopoly
situation. Allowing the cities to provide WiFi
will limit the amount of damage that the
cable/DSL monopolies can do.
The article does not touch on what model these streetlights will be sold. However, imagine this. A city needs streetlights. A city does not NEED a universally accessible wi-fi cloud, though having one can be a boost to business recruitment, image, and emergency communication capabilities. Furthermore, it can enhance the city's schools by bridging the gap for disadvantaged kids and involving parents. Schools enhance property value. Increasing property values enhance a city's tax coffers.
Community wi-fi initiatives are pitifully underserved. Municipal priorities are rightfully focused on police, fire, EMS, sewage, hospitals, infrastructure (such as those streetlights), etc. If a city has extra budget -- and when does that happen? -- wi-fi just does not fall onto the radar. Some cities, such as Austin where I live, have non-profit organizations dedicated to bringing free wi-fi, but they are mostly geared towards getting store-owners to buy equipment, and the store-owners use it as a means to generate traffic. Austin is one of the most wi-fi'd cities on earth, and I still get frustrated with its lack of availability and uniformity. When I leave town, just finding free wi-fi is a pain.
Now, an innovation such as the streetlight product, can pay for itself while helping the city save on electric bills and providing that needed wi-fi connectivity. Going solar always involves a large up-front expense, but the elimination of ongoing electricity bills. I envision a model whereby a city can use its municipal borrowing capacity to fund the purchase of the units and the cost of setting up the wi-fi cloud. Immediately, the city's increased cash flow from the elimination of electricity usage can fund part of the interest and principal payments on the muni bonds.
Secondly, the wi-fi cloud can be outsourced to a management company which will, in turn, cut the city on royalties from advertising. In many places, when you log on to a wi-fi network, the opening "splash page" on the browser requires a login. Don't you think local merchants would love to target upscale, laptop-owning right in their neighborhood? The city could sell premium ad space to, say, realtors specializing in one particular neighborhood. Grocery stores could show their insert specials. Conversely, advertisers could target only upscale neighborhoods for products that sell in those neighborhoods, and increase reach in the poorer neighborhoods.
This model really isn't that different from the model used in radio today. The government gives a license to a company that will put up a tower and broadcast commercial messages as long as they can co-opt the tower in times of emergency. The city could also mandate decency standards for the splash page.
So, revenues from advertising, cost reductions from electricity bills pay the coupons on the interest and principal from the underwritten bonds. The city gets a wi-fi cloud for free. Schools win. The community wins. The technology wins. The environment wins.
Mark Brandon
Sustainable Log - News and Views for Socially Responsible Investors
http://sustainablelog.blogspot.com
http://www.firstsustainable.com
the USA government (where i live) have had the ability to completely control the internet and content. due to the bill of rights and such.. they DONT and NEVER WILL. the only content that is taken down by the FBI is ILLEGAL content. (..child porn)
having wireless cities wouldnt change any of that. yes, the government would be able to monitor the internet, JUST AS THEY ALREADY DO AND CAN.
its just idiotic to protest this. free wireless internet throughout the country would be absolutely fantastic.
the problems: anyone who can make a buck off selling wi-fi--they'll fight it every step of the way because they have no real interest in making their cities a better place, despite their ad's that say "we live here, too!". and certain groups that will feel compelled to restrict content that they find "offensive". then the real battles start--just like with the public libraries.
mark d.
The US is way behind and still arguing.
All residents in the Land of the Free should have free access to Basic Wi-Fi Network Services, and this access should be based upon the Freeway Model not the Toll Road Model.
Merely providing *low-cost* access to the Internet?s Information Highway doesn?t go far enough. Providing low-cost Internet access equates to converting all public streets into low-cost Toll-Roads. This is unthinkable. Ours is the Land of the Freeway and should also be the Land of Free Wi-Fi Access to the Information Highway.
I believe the Public Utility Model is the wrong model to apply to Public Wi-Fi. Public broadband should be treated like a public road not a public utility.
Each and every time I access the street at the foot of my driveway it is *free* because it is paid for by all citizens through general, cross-societal tax revenues. This is the Freeway Model. In a like manner, each and every time I access the Information Highway via the *802.11 On-Ramp* it should also an *Information Freeway.*
The analogous network model for Public Wi-Fi is clearly the network infrastructure model of free public roads, streets, highways and byways that interconnect of villages, towns and cities. This network of public streets and roads is maintained by county, state and federal governments so citizens can travel from Point A to Point B in their daily pursuit of life, liberty and happiness without paying a toll each time they leave their driveway or place of business.
Access to the Wi-Fi Network is just like accessing the network of public highways and byways. It is about local governments promoting and supporting the general e-welfare by implementing a public network infrastructure of FREE Wi-Fi Access to the Information Highway.
Making citizens pay a Public Road Network Access Fee Toll as they exit their driveways to access the public street in front of their homes is unthinkable. All you Dudes & Surf Bunnies out there in the vast e-wastelands, imagine having to pay a toll to access the PCH, A1A, U.S. 101, Beachside Way or the network of Interstate Highways each time you *stoke up* your Woodie surf wagon to go on a Surfari. NO WAY, DUDE! So each time you *stoke up* your PC and access the Internet Information Highway to go e-Surfing it should also be Toll-Free.
Free access and connectivity to the Wi-Fi Web in Your Town, USA is an issue of the constitutional purpose of government. As enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, the government should *promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.* Here in the 3rd Millennium, these constitutional guarantees apply to promoting the general e-welfare and e-securing the blessings of e-liberty to each and every Freewebizen.
They equate to an individual citizen?s freedom to walk down the public streets in their neighborhood without having to pay a toll or a fee each time they go out their front door. The NETWORK of city, town and village streets and roads LINK us to the geographic NODES of our friends, families and business associates. They are part of the government provided common NODAL NETWORK infrastructure established and maintained by the government so each citizen will have the liberty to freely travel down the public highways and byways that LINK their HOME NODE to the NODES of friends, relatives and businesses.
Free-Web For All, Web-Freedom For All - JP
1. Yes, private is better than public if you can afford it. Enjoy your caviar.
2. Have you looked for a job recently? Internet access is a necessity for applying to a surprisingly large number of companies. I believe this is a recent trend from the past few years. So the poor are forced into more and more desperate measures without access.
3. I'll agree, but the issue is not bandwidth -- it's broad coverage. The point is that CityWide WiFi can reach everywhere within the coverage cloud -- even to low speed devices. A low speed terminal is all that's needed to survive. Fast enough for a basic phone would be great. Your point about easing access for the disabled is wonderful and deserves a whole separate thread!
4. Sorry, different angle. Advertising pays for itself and seeks out any new avenue of presentation. So no need for Advertisers to offer hardware. I don't remember an advertiser ever offering even so much as a free AM radio....
5. As to Imminent Domain applying to spectrum... cell topology (as in wireless) makes spectrum access geographic in honeycomb arrays. The spectrum is no longer simply "out there everywhere." For low power emisions -- that means the entire EM band is "for sale" in every neighborhood. I'll agree the laws haven't caught up to the technology -- yet!
6. I can see the Pay-As-You-Go providers offering low cost basic WiFi terminals (like dumb PDAs) -- if the cloud is available. Or WiFi added to MP3 players or to watches with epaper displays. YahooGo is about ubiquitous computing. CityWide Broadband is more about low-power wide spectrum transmission than about data speed.
7. I'd be happy for the cities just to provide the cloud to non-commercial properties like roadways and parks. I still want PC tech "on the body" and "out the door." We're almost there. Let McDonalds and StarBucks provide ecloud coverage in their locations. Let the Cities provide it in theirs.
Vision for the Vision impaired!
And is customer service bad at your local ISP? Try dealing with government customer service. Try getting an educated answer at the IRS or Medicare (or just getting thru). The same people who work at the RMV will be running your internet access? No thanks
The government should try to improve on what it is doing now, before getting involved in more "projects" that will inevitably enlarge and waste more taxpayer dollars.
You live in a small town in the middle of Kansas with a stable or declining population.
There is no way that the local telecom provider nor the local cable company (or sorry, there is no local cable company) will bring high-speed internet access to every household. Increase your taxes and spend the money to get everyone connected at high speed. If you don't, the town will die faster. If you do, you will slow down or reverse the death spiral.
NO.
You live in a large city with both the telecom and cable companies providing high-speed internet access. Why would you spend tax dollars to compete (and lose)? No city goverenment can participate in a technology that has a half-life of 18 months. They are mentally incapable of dealing with such a fact of life.
MAYBE.
You live in something bigger than a small dying town and smaller than a large city.
,dave
ceilings over our potential technological growth. Remember the
digital Beta tape innovated by Japan? It was 10 times better than
VHS but we wanted to push "our" VHS tape and player as the
primary media for our movies. For 20 years we had to endure
poor quality sound and video. To our defense we didn't know
any better so we comtinued to spend billions on this inferior
analog media. But the powers that be (corporate &
governmental), did. We won't even get into hybrid automobiles
or alternative fuels. And lets definitely not bring up our 3 to 4
year technological lag behind Europe & Japan's cell phones and
related services. Why not let us enjoy internet everywhere? Like
the author said, the internet is not a luxury anymore. E-
commerce, paying bills (yeah your Verizon bill too), news, maps,
directions, e-mail and stock trades. All this can be done while
having lunch anywhere and not just your select wi-fi coffee
shop. I don't know about you guys but I think we should start
living by our national creed of freedom. I know our forefathers
didn't foresee the technology of today but they sure had a
broader idea of freedom than our elected officials and corporate
leaders of today. Let us grow for once. I could give a rats little
hairy butt if Verizon or any other company doesn't like it.
- It worked beautifully in Jerusalem
-
by Howlleo
January 9, 2006 7:13 AM PST
- I dont know what kind of problems there could be with city hot spots. WHen I was in Jerusalem they unveiled wireless in the city center. It saved me a lot of trouble and money, and pretty soon half the city center was coated in teenagers on their laptops.
-
Reply to this comment
View
reply
-
-
See all 48 Comments >>The internet cafes doubtless lost money, but Internet is enough of a necessity that people shouldn't have to pay for it. RAdio is free, standard TV is free, internet should be free.