Feeds

Municipal Wi-Fi access schemes unjust - report

Everybody pays, few benefit

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

Government run, city-wide hotspots will unfairly tax residents for a service that only a handful will use, according to Steven Titch, co-author of a recent report denouncing the ambitions of Philadelphia, Las Vegas, New York, and others to become Wi-Fi Meccas.

"Whose internet does muni[cipal] wireless subsidize?" Titch asked rhetorically during a press conference commemorating the report's release. "The high-end professional's," he insisted.

Traveling business people and their college-aged children will enjoy the benefits of free or heavily-discounted service, while the majority of citizens, who are not equipped to take advantage of it, will be stuck paying the bills, he warned.

The negative, and in places alarmist, report comes from the New Millennium Research Council (NMRC), a telecoms industry research outfit and offshoot of Washington lobbying outfit Issue Dynamics Inc (IDI). It cites numerous conceptual flaws that the group, or its clients in the telecomms industry, believe have received too little attention.

Among these is the fact that such schemes might leave local governments in the twin roles of regulator and competitor, which the industry sees as patently unfair and ripe for abuse.

Another is the tendency of governments to underestimate the costs involved. For example, Philadelphia reckons its rollout cost, perhaps optimistically, at $60,000 per square mile, or a mere $10m to cover the city's 135 square miles.

The NMRC notes that these estimates typically fail to take maintenance and administrative costs into account. And there may be something to that. "Once the Wi-Fi units have been installed, they create a self-organizing and self-healing wireless mesh," the City of Philadelphia cheerfully explains, in chirpy anticipation of a system that's cheap and easy to maintain.

Another objection is that government controlled access might mean government content filtering. "I think we need to determine whether it is in the best interests of a free society to allow governments to control data transmission and distribution," Barry Aarons, from the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), observed during the press conference.

In all, the report worries much about problems that may never materialize. It's more a catalogue of worst-case scenarios than disinterested analysis. For example, while it cites a few disasters in municipal broadband schemes, it should be noted that these involved laying a lot of fiber optic cable. While there may be a tendency for bureaucrats and politicians to understate the full costs of any project, it's still worth noting that Wi-Fi is less expensive to deploy.

As for whether these schemes represent an equitable use of public funds, fairness is in the eye of the beholder. If a city-wide hotspot is something that most residents want and are willing to pay for, then it can't possibly be called unfair. How it's perceived will vary city to city, but it's alarmist to say that it's automatically inequitable.

The filtering issue is perhaps more tangible, since Congress has passed legislation requiring libraries to filter Internet access in order to qualify for federal funds. This illustrates the everlasting American urge to regulate the freedoms and pleasures of others, and a willingness to use child-protective hype to accomplish it. It is a real and persistent problem. But the analogy is unclear: cities that lean towards providing a sanitized, child-friendly internet will be taking on quite a bit of hassle from myriad sources, such as civil liberties crusaders, outraged users, and snippy journos. It's hard to imagine a city doing this to itself. More likely, Congressional prudes and Jesus bullies will step in at some point and demand it, applying the usual tactic of tax-revenue extortion.

The NMRC appeal to pity, that municipal Wi-Fi is unfair to the telecoms industry, is the weakest argument of all. If telcos don't want governments competing with them, they are at liberty to invest their capital and build out their own systems. But, by and large, they haven't so far, and cities are taking up the slack in response to their conspicuous lack of ambition. In a free market, there's always a price to be paid for dithering. At this point, it's a bit late to start whining about it. ®

Related stories

Philly goes Wi-Fi crazy
Aruba touts Wi-Fi grid scheme
Linksys, Netgear prep soho VoIP kit
Covent Garden gains Wi-Fi coverage

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

More from The Register

next story
Of COURSE Stephen Elop's to blame for Nokia woes, says author
'Google did have some unique propositions for Nokia'
FCC, Google cast eye over millimetre wireless
The smaller the wave, the bigger 5G's chances of success
It's even GRIMMER up North after MEGA SKY BROADBAND OUTAGE
By 'eck! Eccles cake production thrown into jeopardy
Mobile coverage on trains really is pants
You thought it was just *insert your provider here*, but now we have numbers
Don't mess with Texas ('cos it's getting Google Fiber and you're not)
A bit late, but company says 1Gbps Austin network almost ready to compete with AT&T
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.