Slashdot Mirror
Minneapolis To Go Wireless
an_mo writes " According to a Minneapolis Star Tribune article, Wednesday will see the announcement of a request for bids on a citywide wireless access service The city will unveil a request for a proposal for a privately owned, $15 million to $20 million citywide wireless and fiber-optic network to improve government communications by linking every city building, police car and housing inspector. The network would also would be available to every individual in the city for $18 to $24 a month."
As a resident of a suburb just outside of Minneapolis (Eden Prairie), I'm somewhat torn about this:
On the positive side, this influx of competition in the broadband arena is good for me as a consumer, currently tithing about $45/month to Time-Warner Cable (which serves Minneapolis and the SW 'burbs). More competition in the broadband arena is a very good thing--especially when it shakes up entrenched local monopolies (Qwest DSL and Time-Warner Cable). Also, as a Hennepin County (which contains Minneapolis and my suburb) taxpayer, technologies that can streamline government operations (and either provide better services and/or lower taxes) is another good thing.
However, on the negative side, I'm nervous about governments getting into the broadband business--the potential for intrusion and abuse of the citizen's rights to privacy is certainly increased. The fact that this deployment is run by a private company helps a little--but it still concerns me, since the government is providing the funding for it.
Technology itself is neutral and can be used for both good and evil purposes. Perhaps, what I'd like to see would be a citizen's oversight group that can provide the checks on government abuse of the network.
Another smaller suburb to my southwest (Chaska) has their own municipal deployment, which apparently is working out pretty well.
As long as municipal broadband doesn't block other entities from providing broadband service to a community and foster competition, municipal broadband could be a very good thing. But, I'm still concerned about potential abuse of the network by the local governments.
Because, surprise, it takes time and money to do things.
Kudos to the government for charging monthly for access. Charge the people that use it instead of taxing everyone for a handful of geeks to use it.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Spending $20 Million to install wireless is great, but it'll reflect poorly if the system isn't completely overhauled every few years.
So if every cop car is linked, couldn't you find a way to track the location of each car and then use that to plan a crime? Or see that there are no cars on the road, so you can speed as fast as you want.
Want to empower your citizens or simply want to sell them to the highest bidder?
Sure this simplifies the question, but some solutions ( http://www.personaltelco.net ) work with all the parts of a community ( citizens, biz owners, etc) to create the power to empower, not simply the muni blessed right to make more montly bill paying consumers.
The real question is , what works for your community. In places where there is not a grass roots DIY mindset then the AOLization method might indeed be the way to go, for communities that can raise the populace to action though....oh thereis so much more to be done.
Come to Portland, see the results in progress.
-tom
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
I look forward to the time in the not so distant future where wireless internet access is considered an inherent right.
Yes and free food, and free homes, and free clothing, and free TV, and free video rentals, and free pot (like what you've been smoking) and free computers and free cars... yippee this is fun.
FTA: No tax money would be used for the Minneapolis wireless network, which would be paid for, built, owned and operated by the winning bidder on the city's proposal. That is a markedly different approach than in Philadelphia, where the city will own and operate a new Wi-Fi network.
From You:
Kudos to the government for charging monthly for access. Charge the people that use it instead of taxing everyone for a handful of geeks to use it.
The one reason I am not against this implementation. Had they made it free, I would have been pissed. One thing I am concerned about though, how is this network (if it is using standard 802.11 a/b/g equipment), going to be affected by personal wirless hubs/routers? That should degrade/jam performance. They also are talking about replacing police radios (if I understood that correctly) with VoIP radios on this network. Wouldn't that be open to jamming (as in even more so than cellphones) and interference from other WAPs? Or are they going to ban the use of all non-city WAPs?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I've lived in Minneapolis all my life, and I'm here to tell you that free wireless is a natural outcome of our longstanding populist/socialist traditions.
Free market, my ass. If you want to live in a better world, instruct your government to tax you and your neighbors -- then spend that tax money on a better world.
-kgj
-kgj
...to RTFA, here are some key points.
* The citywide wireless network is necessary to improve government communications by linking every city building, police car and housing inspector to the city's databases, city officials say.
* No tax money would be used for the Minneapolis wireless network, which would be paid for, built, owned and operated by the winning bidder on the city's proposal.
* Minneapolis officials decided not to build their own wireless network because of high construction and administrative costs, Beck said. In addition, city officials were concerned that cities offering high-speed Internet service have been accused by large telephone companies of competing with the private sector, he said.
* the city also needed an improved network that could speed up data traffic in its 47 main buildings and extend high-speed access to 300 other buildings
* The city also wanted to replace expensive cellular radio communications used by police cars with a cheaper and faster wireless data network. There also was a desire to provide broadband to an estimated 10 to 15 percent of the city's population that either isn't served by high-speed Internet access or can't afford it.
So, there's a little bit more going on here than the city slapping an antenna on top of the IDS tower and charging people for internet access, which a lot of these posts seem to think is what is happening.