Persuading A City To Go Wireless?

An anonymous reader submits "We keep reading about cities dishing out free wireless; Philadelphia, San Francisco, Austin, TX, and many, many others. But how does one go about forming a group to get their city to go wireless? Looking around, there are a few articles out there, but most deal with selling it to businesses. I haven't been able to find a definitive guide to "Getting your city to go wireless". So I send my plea out to the Slashdot community - just how does one go about getting your city to go wireless?"

Comments

Need

[regjoe]

The first point you need to sell on is need. Can private business fill the need in the area, if not, then Govenment has the responsibility to listen to its citizens and make an informed decision. I would personally like my ton to offer this, but we already have companies providing it. Govenment should not compete with private business over such matters.

Re:Need

[RollingThunder]

Govenment should not compete with private business over such matters.

I disagree. When things are best provided as a localized monopoly, I would rather the government (yes, with it's inherent inefficiencies, which are magnitudes less than rabid conservatives would have you believe) have that monopoly, than a for-profit company that will eventually abuse that monopoly.

You can prevent the company from abusing the monopoly with government regulation, true - but then you're spending money to regulate the industry. Better you just do it yourself, via the government.

Re:Need

[Skim123]

When things are best provided as a localized monopoly, I would rather the government (yes, with it's inherent inefficiencies, which are magnitudes less than rabid conservatives would have you believe) have that monopoly, than a for-profit company that will eventually abuse that monopoly.

While I agree that in a service that is "best provided as a localized monopoly" that, yes, gov't is much better than privitization. But must there be a monopoly? Why can't there be multiple wireless service providers, competing with one another?

Also, whenever you have a gov't-sponsored program, like a monopolized WISP, you have to remember that (in theory) everyone's paying for it. So it should be a service that virtually everyone utilizes/benefits from. I agree that electricity, water, sewer, etc., fall under this category, but wireless Internet access? This benefits only those with a means/interest to go online, and with the appropriate hardware. Personally, I'd rather pay for wireless service myself (or not, if I decide it's not worth it), than not have the decision and be forcibly taxed for this service.

Re:Need

[icebike]

This is NOT (yep, yelling) something that requires or even suggests a monopoly, any more than cell phone service requires a monopoly.

So your arguments are moot from the start.
No service providers other than water an sewer (and in some places Electricity) can count on a monopoly anymore, and as a consequence people can vote with their pocketbook.

Such is not the case when the government steps in, and abuses of power happen far more frequently when the government is involved than when people are free to take their account elsewhere.

'Fraid you will have to find some other excuse for living off the public teet...

Offer to pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm serious. Cities have better things to spend the tax money on, if you really want it to happen then find other people that feel the same way and offer to fund it.

Re:Offer to pay for it

[fyngyrz]

I disagree. The government currently has the role of maintaining transport infrastructure. With good reason: It is critical, and it is very darned big. I'm pretty sure that in addition to transport of land, air and water vehicles, cargo on same, water supplies, and pedestrians, that the transport of electricity, heating fuels and information/communications are appropriate for the government to (a) manage the infrastructure of and (b) ensure that everyone has the opportunity to use the resource without surcharge other than the flat tax (the flat tax being the only fair tax system possible IMHO.)

The idea that some family can't get heat, light, or information/education should be enough to see why corporations should not be allowed to limit access to those resources to those who are cash-heavy enough to support the corporation.

YMMV (but I doubt it.)

Tourist hot spots?

[NoInfo]

I'd start by trying to get the most touristy areas covered by wireless. Beaches, Main street, historic district, etc.

It's much more likely to happen there since most cities have no problem providing this sort of support to non-citizens.

Over time, this might grow to your local parks and hang-out areas.

A city is a business.

[mind21_98]

Except that it doesn't usually make a profit. Just convince it that it'll bring in business people and the like and increase city revenues. Of course, if your city's a hick town in the middle of nowhere or fairly small, it might not be popular, especially if it's going to be geared towards business people (no offense).

You don't

[cbelle13013]

No offence to any government working /.ers that operate the computers, but having the government offer "free" wireless internet is a horrible idea.

Besides tax dollars being used to kill the competition, you'll end up with a low quality service. The same types of people that work at the DMV will work at the Municpal Internet Department. I'm not talking about the techies that know what they're doing, I'm strictly talking customer support.

Also, why would you want to give the government easier access to your internet data? Most of the folks here are adamently against the Patriot Act, but free governemnt sponsored wireless seems to be okay?

My company uses Verizon with the EvDO cards and have "wireless" everywhere we go, at near cable speeds. Its $80 a month and I get a real human to answer the tech support line after i prompt for English. AT&T and others have very similar solutions.

I can only imagine tech support through the government.

Re:You don't

[dogfart]

I actually find that many government agencies provide better customer service than many for-profit entities. Perhaps because government customers are voters, while private sectors customers are a cost to be minimized (e.g. post-sales support).

I get a much prompter response from the California DMV than I do from SBC Global, Earthlink or just about any other private entity.. It actually shocked me that I was able to set up a DMV appointment so effortlessly without being on hold for 30 minutes, going through multiple useless IVR options, or having my call dropped for no reason and having to start over. All of these annoyances are just standard for private sector so-called customer support.

A municipally run utility is less likely to cooperate with Patriot Act searches than a large national ISP dependent on Federal government favors. Remember many cities have gone on record opposing the Patriot Act, and many local police departments have witheld cooperation from the Feds (where they can). Cities tend to be subject to open government laws, requiring that their actions be available to members of the public - as opposed to private companies that can seal their records up at their whim.

Re:You don't

[josh3736]

First of all, why would a city government offering free wireless even have tech support??? If you can't figure out how to pop in a 802.11 card and connect to "CityWireless" that's your problem-- you get what you pay for!

Second, there is no law forcing you to use the government-sponsored wireless connectivity. If you don't want them to have "easier access" to your internet data, connect a VPN or SSH session back to your box at home. Problem solved.

I'm not going to pay Verizon $80 a month so I can check my mail and browse Slashdot from the park when the city could put up a public AP that would cost me nothing.

Re:You don't

[Darth_Burrito]

I dunno. People, myself included, have hated dealing with the DMV for as long as I can remember. Long lines, complicated fee structures, very few if any online capabilities.

I've seen people wait in line for 15 minutes, then, after being served, be told they had to go wait in a different line for something else. I've gone to DMV stations where I've been told they only offer a subset of services there, and I'd have to drive 15 miles to a nearby town to take care of the rest.

That said, I also hate dealing with the ISPs. But in all honesty, I think I'd rather deal with them. They may be rat bastards from hell, but they generally have it together a little better than government entities.

Besides, an ISPs core business is to provide internet service. A city government's core business is to govern and manage. I wouldn't expect a city to get into the ISP business any more than I would expect Kraft foods to do the same.

Justification

[Agilis]

A good part of it is justifying the cost of doing such a project for what might be little benefit to city budget committees who are always strapped for cash. Other than "hey look we're tech savy come here!" what benefit do you derive from paying for free wireless upkeep in a metro area?

Simple .... Money!

[polyp2000]

But how does one go about forming a group to get their city to go wireless?

Tell them that its a great way to make MONEY...

$$$$$

Resistance

[Anonymous Writer]

Wouldn't mobile phone network providers lobby against this sort of thing? If a city went wireless, portable WiFi VoIP devices could be used as an alternative to mobile phones, without the call charges. Since mobile phone carriers have deep pockets and people wanting a city to go wireless wouldn't have as much influence, chances are politicians would go in favor of maintaining "soft money" lobbyists protecting their source of revenue.

Does anyone else think this is a bad idea?

[nenya]

Talk about your massively insecure network...

Do we really want to encourage everyone in an entire city to take part in a single network which seems almost inherently insecure? I can't imagine they'd use any kind of WEP, as that would defeat the purpose of having a city-wide network. I know I feel a lot safer behind my router's firewall than I ever do warchalking.

Re:Does anyone else think this is a bad idea?

[bob65]

Do we really want to encourage everyone in an entire city to take part in a single network which seems almost inherently insecure? I can't imagine they'd use any kind of WEP, as that would defeat the purpose of having a city-wide network. I know I feel a lot safer behind my router's firewall than I ever do warchalking.

Why couldn't you just treat it with the same trust as you do the internet? That is, always have a firewall between your system and the wireless connection.

Re:Does anyone else think this is a bad idea?

[OrangeSpyderMan]

Talk about your massively insecure network...

Wake up and smell the coffee. The internet is as insecure as it comes - anything you don't feel comfortable sending across WiFi you shouldn't send across the Internet either. WiFi has the advantage that only people in your neighbourhood can break in - that's heaven when you compare it to the internet :-) Encryption exists, use it, you should do anyway if it has to go through the internet - no difference.

no need to persuade them

[wikinerd]

Instead of whining and trying to persuade "the dad" to provide us with wireless, isn't it easier to build it up by ourselves?
There is no need to persuade them to go wireless if they don't want. They see the initial infrastructure cost and are afraid of it, but I think we (the ppl) can volunteer to build up a city network.
Just sacrifice some of your $$ to buy equipment and find some friends in the neighboorhood to start a small wireless network. Then, find more friends to join the network and collect money to buy more equipment. Be sure not to break any laws and not to allow piracy etc, so that your network will survive. After your network grows, startup a nonprofit to collect donations etc and buy a fatpipe to connect it to the Internet.
There are already many projects working like this and they succeed. When they grow up, they even get the gov support and if they are lucky they may even get founding etc :)
volunteerism is always better. This is clearly shown in cases like BSD and GNU and Linux and open content encyclopaedias where unpaid volunteers create much better products than business solutions etc.
See an example in EU: http://www.awmn.gr/

Persuading the goverment to waste money?

[Luscious868]

I don't think the goverment should be in the business of wasting the publics hard earned money on wireless internet access.

Free wireless = BAD idea

[mageos]

I am no expert, but I have had the oppertunity to work with public(government) IT admins. No offence, but some are fairly clueless. Most professional network admins have a hard enough time keeping spammers off their networks, but could you imaging a free, public WIFI city? That would be every spammers dream come true. Besides, I can thing of a million better things my taxes could do.

Re:You don't - The Myth of Business and Gov't

[LikelyStory]

Look, this is a myth, folks, that needs to be beaten with a stick until it's good and dead.

1. When you think "wireless utility", how about you think "water utility" - yeah, that stuff that pretty much just works, so much so you take it for granted. Designed and run by gov't employees.

2. The reference to the California DMV is exactly right. It's impressively low hassle, and has been for some years - but before that, it was hell-on-wheels, fulfilling every bit of that myth. It's pretty clear that what happened is, somebody took control of the California DMV and, well, fixed it. Made it run sensibly and effectively (not so easily done). It's amazing the difference. There is an unsung hero in that story.

3. The well-known comic, Dilbert, is about government bureaucrats, ineptitude and inefficiency... oh, wait.

4. Others have pointed out such companies, so...

The point? The performance of an entity, whether a piece of government or a private company, depends primarily on its internal culture (which is itself influenced by individuals like the unknown hero of the DMV). It has very little to do with whether the service it provides is for-profit or not.

Of course, companies can go out of business, but it's pretty damn obvious - if you look at evidence, instead of relying without thinking on that that myth/theory - that plenty of companies with abysmal customer satisfaction profiles merrily continue to profit.