Slashdot Mirror
NYC: Leverage Fiber, Offer Free Wi-Fi
gpmap writes "A new study from the New York City Council is recommending that the Big Apple throw open the competitive bidding process for its annual $130 million phone and Internet bill in order to leverage one of the most expansive -- and underused -- fiber optic networks in the country.
In so doing, New York City could not only cut its annual telecom bill, but would also be in a position to deploy wireless networking links as the "last mile" connecting metropolitan area networks, or MANs. In addition, it suggested using the fiber to deploy free Internet access with a Wi-Fi Network in Brooklyn's Prospect Park."
This is one thing I never understand about goverments , they lock them selves into a contract and keep on renewing it without looking for cheaper alternatives . In ottawa city counsil finally woke up and founded ottawa telecom to use there power company ROW on the poles to do there own direct fiber (for cheaper inet access for schools , libraries and city goverment with medium prices for other business) . .
Now I see NY is takeing the first step , looking for a competitor to verizon (the incumbant I'm guessing) ; as a sort of after thought why dont they see how well they could serve there own needs as well (not sugesting that they just go it alone but if its cheaper why not?)
I sincerly whish best of luck to NY with there future projects.
Note : in this post NY = NYC
There are many wifi hotspots in downtown manhattan, and areas of brooklyn and other boroughs. The internet cafes have them. And slashdot has carried stories on private individuals providing wifi connectivity in nyc ad nauseum.
If the terrorists haven't brought down the world from a nyc wifi connection yet, what makes you think this would be a tremendous problem now?
The official US government APPROVED policy is first, elect board members to high office from large international corporations. Then they *divest themselves* from their holdings so they are now squeaky clean in their political decisions. Then you hire the companies that they *used to work for* for big ticket government contracts. Then you hire PR managers to keep repeating that there is no conflict of interest. This "bidding" deal is unpatriotic, and so old fashioned and unnecessary and inefficent now, and even suggesting it will result in the person becoming a "person of interest"..
heh
Seriously, sounds like some sort of plan. Competition might actually work.
There probably won't be any large scale free and uncontrollable internet access in the US for any foreseeable future.
1: Nothing is free. Especially not in NYC
2: Anything that can be exploited for profit or crime, will be. Especially in NYC
3: With untracable and encrypted cell phones being prevented from being available the US even BEFORE 9/11, and with the political climate changes of today, the chance would be slim for a free, mobile and anonymous Internet, sponsored by those in power. Especially in NYC.
Sure, they may throw up a few access points here and there, usable by those who pay and register to use it. That's as far as it's likely to go. Your average homeless person won't be able to use it any more than he'll be able to vote -- i.e. only in theory, but not in practice.
Of more interest is the proposal to cut costs by offering up the phone and Internet infrastructure reorganization to the "open" market. What will this mean in savings, how will it affect the current providers, what will it do for connectivity, and how low can the QoS be pushed by the new private interests before it becomes painful? The states and cities need to cut costs where they can, and using something that already exists is a good thing. It doesn't, however, imply that there will be service improvements.
Well... Isn't it their God-given right? Why shouldn't they own the fibre? They put up the cost of laying it in the first place, and unless they did it under contract no one else has any claim of ownership. US law requires them to fairly compensate Verizon if they want its property, it can't just be nationalized on command.
There's no such thing as competitive bidding in NYC Government. (Trust me. I work in NYC Government, and I work closely with NYC DoITT.) The agency needing the particular service often knows who it's going with already. Putting a contract out for bid is merely a formality to get the public and the New York Post to stop yammering about unfair corrupt contract granting practices.
Besides, there is no other choice but Verizon when comes to telecomm in NYC. Verizon practically owns everything, and to put another provider in charge of anything wired is making a big mistake.
Free Govt sponsored access in NYC .. And I have a nice bridge to sell you. As a NYC resident, I can tell you that most capital or near-capital projects have the following phases
(1). Initial Idea
(2). Meetings to fight over who can take credit for having the initial idea
(3). A 3 year bidding process that is actually a moot point since the contract will be given to the company that can give the most semi-legal and illegal campaign contributions.
(4). Implementation, which always goes over budget due to fraud and/or cronyism
(5). The realization that far to many corners were cut to make this thing usable.
There are plenty of free WiFi access points in NYC as it is. A prefessor of urban Planning at NYU has already set up over 30 publically avaibale WiFi access points alone. Lets leave NYC govt out of providing a service they will just find a way to screw up.